Skip to main content

Full text of "A Critical history of the Athanasian creed : representing the opinions of antients and moderns concerning it : with an account of the manuscripts, versions, and comments, and such other particulars as are of moment for the determining the age, and author, and value of it, and the time of its reception in the Christian churches"

See other formats 


J72 


o 


'^^-^t-r 


from  f3e  £i6rart  of 

(pxofcBBox  ^c^mud  (UtifTer 

in  (JUcmorp  of 

3ubgc  ^amucf  (Utiffer  (grecfttnrib^e 

(preecnfcb  6p 

^amuef  (miffer  (grcclltnnbge  Eong 

to  f3e  feifirarp  of 

(prtnceton  tgeofogtcaf  ^eminarj 

/  35  / 


A 

CRITICAL  HISTORY     ' 

OF     THE      <^M^^^. 

Athanasian    Creed. 

Representing  the  OPINIONSof 

ANTIENTS  AND  MODERNS 

CONCERNING   IT: 

IP'kh  an  Account  of  the  Manuscripts,  Versions,  and 
Comments,  and  fuch  other  particulars  as  are  of  moment 
for  the  determining  the  Age,  and  Author,  and  Value  oj  ity 
and  the  Time  of  its  Reception  in  the  Chrijiian  Churches. 


By  D  A  N  I  E   L     WATERLAND.     D.  D. 

Chancellor  of  the  Church  of  YORK,  mdchdpUin 
iu  ordinary  to  His  MAJESTY. 


CAMBRIDGE, 

Printed  at  the  University  Press  for  Corn.  Crown- 
field,  Printer  to  the  University:  And  are  to  be  fold  by 
J.Knapton,  R.  Knaplock,  W.  andT.lNNYS  Bookfellers in 
LONDON.  1724. 


.  .N^>i^y>f 


-4  .■  ^'v 


To  His  GRACE, 
The    lord     ARCHBISHOP 


O  F 


YORK, 

Primate  of  ENGLAND 
and  Metropolitan. 


My  Lord, 

^^^^g|AM  dellrous  of  fending  thefe  Pa- 
pers abroad  under  your  Grace's 
Name,  in  confidence  you  will 
be  a  Patron  to  Them,  as  you  have 
been  to  the  Author.     I  would 


g'jg  ^^-Q^js^^m^i^ 


make  their  way  Ihort  and  eafy  to  the  pnhlick 
Efteem?  by  introducing  them  firft  into  your 


^ 


G  R  A  c  e's 


The  Dedication. 

Grace's  Acquaintance,  and  good  Opinion: 
Which  if  they  have  once  the  Honour  to  ob  • 
tain,  I  may  then  be  allured  that  they  will  be 
both  ufeful  to  the  World,  and  acceptable  with 
^Xgood  Men\  the  Height  of  my  Ambition. 

THE  SuhjeB-i  my  Lord,  is  the  Athanafian 
Creeds  the  moft  accurate  Syftem  of  the  /Itha- 
nafiam  that  is,  the  Chri/lian  Faith :  Of  which 
your  G  R  A  c  E  is,  by  your  Station  and  Chara- 
d:er,  by  Duty  and  Office,  and,  what  is  more, 
by  Inclination  and  Principle,  and  real  Servi- 
ces, the  watchiul  Guardian^  and  Preferver. 

THE  K^ppy  Fruits  of  it  are  vifible  in  the 

How  and  inconfiderable  Progrefs  that  th^Nevj 

Hercfy  has  been  able  to  make  within  your  Pro- 

'Vince;  where  it  died,  in  a  manner,  as  it  firft 

arofe,  and  no  fooner  began  to  lift  up  its  Head, 

but  funk  down  again  in  Shame  and  Coiifu- 

Hoii:  As  if  the  Plenty  of  good  Seed  fowh  had 

left 


The  Dedication. 

left  no  room  for  Tares^  or  They  could  take 
no  root  in  a  Soil  fo  well  Cultivated, 

WHILE  your  G  r  A  c  e  is  promoting  the 
Honour  and  Jnterefts  of  our  Holy  Faith,,  in 
the  Eminent  Way?  by  the  Wifdom  of  your 
Counfelsy  the  Authority  of  your  Precepts:^  and 
the  Brightnels  of  your  High  Example ;  I  am 
endeavouring,  in  fuch  a  way  as  I  can?  to  con- 
tribute fomething  to  the  fame  Common  Caufey 
tho'  it  be  but  {light  and  fmall?  tho'  it  be 
only  reviewing  the  Fences^  and  furveying  the 
Outvjorkr^  which  is  the  moft  I  pretend  to  in 
the  Htfimry  h/^xc  prefentad. 

WHAT  Advantage  Others  may  reap  from 

the  Public ation-iWiW  remain  in  fufpence:  But  I 

am  fure  of  .Qi^€  to  my  Je/f(^nd  I  lay  hold  of  it 

with  a  great  deal  of  pleafure)  The  Opportunity 

I  thereby  have  of  returning  my  puhlick  Thanks 

to    ypur  Cjjiacp.   for  your  puhlick  Favors. 

Thor 


The  Dedication. 

Tho'  This,  my  Lord^  is  but  a  fcanty  Expreffion 
for  them,  and  far  fliort,  where  the  engaging 
Manner  and  CircumJlanceS',  known  but  to 
Fevj^  and  not  to  be  underftood  by  Many^ 
make  fb  confiderable  an  Addition  in  the 
whole,  and  almoft  double  the  Obligation 
upon 


My  LOR'D. 


Tour  G R  A  C  E V  pioji  obl'tgedy 


tnoft  dutiful. 


and  tnoft  obedient  Humble  Servant, 


Daniel  ^atbrland. 


THE 

PREFACE 

WHAT  I  here  frefent  the  Reader  n}jithy  nxiJl  not 
require  much  Preface.  7he  Introdudion  intimatep 
the  Dcfign,  and  Ufe,  and  Partition  of  the  Work, 
7he  Appendix,  nji)hich  is  an  additional  Inlargement  heyond  my  firfi 
Dejigfiy  gives  account  of  it  felf.  I  fuhjoin  Two  Indexes,  for  the 
Eafe  and  Convenience  offuch  Perfons  as  may  he  difpofed,  not  only 
to  read  thefe  Sheet Sy  hut  to  Jludy  the  SuhjeB,  I  Jhould  fcarce 
iave  thought  of  making  Indexes  to  fo /mail  a  Treatife,  had  I  not 
found  the  like  in  Tentzelius,  ufon  the  fame  SuhjeBy  and  to  a 
/mailer  TraB  than  This  is.  His  <vjere  of  conjiderahle  ufe  to  Me, 
as  often  as  I  wanted  to  revienv  any  particular  Author,  or  Pafl 
fige,  or  to  compare  dijlant  Parts,  relating  to  the  fame  lhin(rs, 
one  'with  another.  The  Beneft  therefore  'which  I  reapd  from  his 
Lahoursy  1  am  'willing  to  pay  hack  to  the  Publick  hy  mine. 

As  to  the  Subjed  of  the  following  Sheets,  I  make  no  quefion  of 
its  'well  deferring  the  Thoughts  and  Conjideration  of  every  Jludious 
^'Reader  5  having  hefoVe  pafsd  through  the  Hands  of  many  the  mojl 
learnedy  and  mojl  judicious  Men,  and  fuch  as  'would  not  mifem^ 
ploy  their  Time,  and  Pains  upon  a  Trife,  As  to  the  prefent  Manage- 
ment of  it,  it  muf  he  left  to  the  Reader  to  judge  of,  as  He  fees 
Caufe. 

i  Jhould  thro'w  in  a  few  previous  Hints  about  the  Chronology 
of  tloe  federal  Parts,  and  the  Rules  I  have  fet  to  my  felf  in  it. 
For  our  Saxon  Kings,  'where  I  have  occafan  to  mention  them,  I 

content 


The    PREFACE. 

content  my  felf  iiith  Tyrrell's  Tables,  printed  at  the  end  of  Dr. 
Hickcs's  Ihclaurns.  They  are  the  hejt  for  gti'mg  a  fiort  and 
fuc chili  i^ie-vj  oj  the  iihole,  and  are  accurate  euongh  for  mv  prrpoje -^ 
thd  ihty  may  fomctimes  differ  a  little  from  the  other,  and  perhaps 
truer  y  /Iccoitvts.  Ho  weaver ,  now  I  have  grutn  this  prei^ious  no- 
tice of  it,  there  ^irill  be  no  danger  of  leadhig  any  Perfon  into  mijlahes 
on  that  Head. 

For  the  Chronology  of  the  other  Parts,  I  have  conftdted  the 
hefl  Authors  ^  endeavouring  to  fix  it  niith  as  much  Accuracy  as  I 
could.  Ifhercver  I  could  certainly  determine  the  Age  of  any  TraFf, 
printed  or  matiufcript,  to  a  Year,  /  fet  doiin  That  Tear :  Jf*here 
I  could  not  do  it  {as  in  Manufcripts  one  feldom  can)  I  take  any 
frohahle  year  within  the  Conjpafs  of  Time  luhen  <^w  Author  iskno'Vcii 
to  have  flourilh'd ;  or  for  a  Manufcripty  any  prohahle  year  iiith- 
in  fuch  a  Century,  or  fuch  a  King's  Reign  '-j.^herein  the  Manu^ 
fci'ipt  is  reafon ably  judged  to  have  been  iifitten :  And  I  general- 
ly chufe  a  round  7iumber,  rather  than  other*^ifey  in  fiich  mdef* 
nite  Cafes  and  hijlances. 

Thus  for  example,  firjl  in  refpect  of  Authors;  there  is  a  Com- 
ment (?/*  Venantius  Fortunatus,  upon  the  Athanafian  Cr^^^^,  ^cjhich 
I  have  reprinted  in  my  Appendix.  I  cannot  fx  the  Age  of 
it  to  a  Tear,  no  nor  to  xo  Tears.  All  that  is  certain  is,  that 
St  ^iias  made  hetiueen  y  5  6  irhen  Fortunatus  frfl  ^jsent  into  the 
Gallican  Parts,  and  55^5?  ^ujhen  Fie  ivas  advanced  to  the  Bi- 
Jhoprick  of  Poi^ticrs.  JVithin  This  "^lide  compafs,  I  chufe  the  year  57  c. 
If  any  one  fiall  rather  chufe  >  80,  or  5j?o,  I /hall  not  dif- 
pute  it  nrith  Him,  nor  doth  any  thing  very  material  depend 
upon  it :  But  if  any  good  reafon  can  be  given  for  taking  fome 
other  year  rather  than   570,  i  Jljall  iwtnediately  acquiefce  in  it, 

>  I  {hall 


The    PREFACE. 

i  fhall  mention  one  Inffance  more,  ^-ajhere  the  Compafs  of  Time  is  not 
near  fo  ^ide.  In  fixi7ig  the  Date  of  one  of  the  Pieces  of  Ratram, 
'vjhich  1  refer  to  in  page  21,  1  guide  my  Jelf  by  the  PoTitifcate  of 
Pope  Nicholas  /.  ^who  fat  in  the  See  from  858  to  867  :  And 
fo  I  place  Ratram /;2  ^<5  4i  v.pon  prohahle  prefumption^^o^hich  may 
fuffice.  But  if  it  he  certain  that  Pope  NichoLisV  Letter  to  the 
Gallican  Bijhops  lore  date  fo  loio  as  S6y  (nvhich  I  have  fince  found 
reafon  to  believe)  then  Ratram  ought  to  he  placed  rather  in  8<j8  j 
njjhich  i  here  intimate  in  the  'waj  of  CorreBion. 

As  to  Manufcripts,  it  is  ivell  kno'con  there  is  no  fixing  them 
precifely  to  a  Tear,  meerly  from  the  Hand^  or,  Chara6ler:  And 
there  are  but  fe-iv,  in  comparifon,  that  carry  their  own  certain 
Dates  ^coith  them.  Ihe  bejl  Judges  therefore  in  thefe  matters,  nvili 
think  it  fufficient  to  point  out  the  King's  Reign,  or  fomefmes  the 
Century,  ^wherein  a  Manufcript  ^jas  ^ixritten :  And  in  the  njery 
antient  ones,  above  1 000  years  old,  They  nvill  hardly'  he  pofaive 
fo  much  as  to  the  Century,  for  ^ant  of  certaifi  d if  criminating 
marks  between  Manufcript s  of  the  Vth,  FIth,  and  Vllth  Cen- 
turies. 

It  may  be  ask'd  then,  njuhy  I  pretend  to  fx  the  feveral  Manu- 
fcripts ,  hereafter  to  he  mention  d,  to  certain  years  ifi  the  margin  ^ 
tnofe  that  carry  no  certain  Dates,  as  avell  as  the  other  that  do  ? 
I  do  it  for  order  and  regularity,  and  for  the  more  diflincl  per- 
ception of  Things ;  ^^hich  is  much  promoted  and  affified  by  this  or^ 
derly  ranging  them  according  to  Years,  At  the  fame  time,  the  in^ 
telligent  Reader  'will  eqjily  under fand  nvhere  to  take  a  thing  as 
certain,  and  'where  to  tnake  Allowances.  It  is  fomething  like  the 
placing  of  Cities,  Tow?is,  Rivers,  &c.  in  a  Map,  or  a  Glebe: 
They  have  all  their  certain  Places  there,  in  fuch  or  fuch  precife 

^  ^  Decrees 


The    PREFACE. 

Degrees  of  Longitude^  <^?7^  Latitude  j  nihich  perhaps  feUom  anfv:er 
to  the  Jlriif  Truth  of  Things  J  or  to  a  7fiathematical  exaSliieJs.  ButjitU 
it  ferves  the  purpofe  ^uery  near  as  ^dcell  as  if  every  thing  had  been 
adjujled  ''dith  the  utmojl  ^Jtcety :  And  the  Imagination  and  Memo- 
ry are  tnighti/y  relieved  by  tt.  Thus  much  I  thought  proper  to  hmt  in 
^vindication  of  my  Mcihod,  and  to  prevent  any  deception  on  one 
Band,  or  m'tfconjiruclion  on  the  other.  I  have,  I  thinkj  upon  the 
niholey  generally  gone  upon  the  fairejl  and  moji  prohable  prefump- 
tion ,  and  according  to  the  mo  ft  correct  Accounts  of  the 
kno'v:iyjg.y  and  mo  ft  accurate  Men.  But  if  I  have  any  "nhere  through 
inadvertency,  or  for  iiant  of  better  information,  happen" d  to  mijiake 
in  any  material  part,  the  befl  '-ojay  of  apologizing  for  it,  ^aill  be  to 
correU  it  the  frjl  opportunity,  after  notice  of  it. 

As  to  7neer  O\ri\i\\0\\s,They  ^dill  appear  more,  or  feirer,  accord- 
ing to  Ad  ens  difj^erent  Judgments,  or  Opinio7js  iihat  to  call  an  O- 
miflion.  I  inight  have  inlarged,  cojjfderably,  the  ftrji  Chapter, 
ijchich  treats  of  the  Learned  K'lodcrns :  iho'  fome  perhaps  ^jjHI  think 
it  too  large  already,  and  that  it  might  better  have  been  cojitraBed, 
I  omitted  feveral  Klodeiins  mention  d  by  Tentzelius,  ni:hofe  pro- 
fefs'd  Dejign  luaf  to  take  in  all:  Mine  njoas  only  to  take  the  prin- 
cipal,  or  at  7nany  as  might  fufjice  to  give  the  Reader  a  full 
and  diJIinB  idea  honv  this  matter  had  flood,  nuith  the  learned 
Moderns,  for  80  years  laft  pa  ft,  Ho-ojever,  I  mujl  ingcnuouf- 
ly  oivn,  that  Some  nvere  omitted  purely  hecaufe  at  That  Time  I 
had  not  met  iiithlhem:  Qthervsife  Ruelius  of  the  year  16  j^, 
ijho  has  fpent  above  lo  Pages,  in  ^to,  particularly  upon  the 
fubjeFl  (ConciL  Tom.  i.  p.  6j6.  to  p.  Cyo)  had  certainly  me^ 
ritfd  a  place  in  my  Table  of  Moderns.  Keverthelefs  there  is 
jcarce.  an  obfervation  of  any  moment,  or  fo  much  as  a  Thought  in 

all 


The     PREFACE. 

all  his  Pages,  hut  ivhat  may  he  found,  niith  improvements,  among 
Ihofe  "whom  I  ha^ve  mentiofi'J:  ivhich,  I  leheue,  ^iJl  proue  e« 
malh  true  of  any  other  ^hom  I  have  not  taken  into  my  Ltjl, 

ihere  may  he  Omiffions  of  another  kind,  'vchich  really  render 
the  ^ojork  in  fome  meafure  defedlive,  and  'which  I  could  not  help. 
There  are  mdouhtedly  federal  ufeful  materials,  conceAcd  in  Libra- 
ries, nvhich,  could  I  have  come  to  the  kno'wledge  of  them,  might  have 
contrihuted  to  the  perfeciion  of  the  follonving  Treatije.  I  ^ould 
have  'waited  fome  Time  longer  for  Things  of  Ihat  kind,  hut  that 
I  thought^  the  furejl  and  the  Jhortefl  "way  to  draw  out  thofe  hidden 
Stores y  ivas  frfl  to  jho^w  hy  This,  as  by  a  Specimen,  of  nxjhat 
ufe  They  may  really  he  'when  brought  to  Light,  And  no^w 
I  fiall  he  very  glad  if  '■what  hath  been  here  done  may  hut  prove 
an  ufeful  Introdu&ion  to  more,  and  larger  Tifcoverief  upon  the' 
fame  SuhjeB.  If  Any  thing  coiifiderahle  flill  remains,  either  in 
frivate  Hands,  or  fuhlick  Repofitories  j  Any  thing  that  may 
he  ferviceahle  to  clear  up  fome  dark  Part,  or  to  correU  any 
Miltnke,  or  to  confirm  and  illuflrate  any  important  Truth  re- 
lating to  the  SuhjeB  j  I  /ball  be  very  thankful  to  the  P  erf  on  that 
fiall  oblige  either  Me  v:ith  private  notice  of  it,  or  the  Publick 
voith  ne'w  Improvemefits^on  This  Head, 

Cambridge.  Magd.  Coli, 
*)^ob.  25-,  ■  1713, 


ERRATA 


Fjgo. 
6. 
9- 

IX. 

39. 

44. 

87- 

1 09. 

164.    . 

Index    • 


Line 

4- 
14. 

10. 

8.  . 

'3- 

3..  - 
36.  . 
3J- 

37- 
ult.     ■ 

9.  . 


For 
704. 

Vlth. 

AdclbcrtU5. 
N. 

confiJtniJy   averr'd 
dccauratum. 
defcribentur. 
Bcilario. 
negitcc. 
104. 

coniente. 
Riculphius. 
Julianus.  i6S- 


Read 
705. 

Vth. 

Adalbertus. 
N.  xjjp. 
faid 

deauratum. 
dcfcribantur. 
Bullario. 
negata. 
124. 
content. 
Riculphus.  . 
72. 


CRITICAL    HISTORY 

O  F     T  H  E 

ATHANASIAN  CREED 


THE 

INTRODUCTION 

SHEWING 

The  T>efign  and  Vfe  of  this  Treati/e :    with   the  Method 
and  Partition  of  it. 

Y  Defign  is,  to  inquire  into  the  Age,  An- 
thor,  and  rW/^^  of  that  Celebrated  Confeffion, 
which  goes  under  the  Name  of  The  Atha- 
nafian  Creed.  The  geneml  Approbation  it 
hath  ^long  met  with  in  the  Chriftian 
Churches,  and  the  fmicuUr  Regard  which 

hath  been,  early  and  late,  paid  to  it  in  our 

Oivn,  ('while  it  makes  a  part  of  our  Liturgy,  and  itands  recom- 
mended to  us  in  owM  Articles)  will,  I  doubt  not,  be  Confidera^ 
tions  fufficient  to  juftify  an  Undertaking  of  this  kind  :  Provided 
only,  that  the  Performance  be  anfwerable,  and  that  it  fall  not 
fhort  of  its  Principal  Aim,  or  of  the  juft  Expedations  of  the 
ingenuous,  and  candid  Readers.  No  one  will  exped  more  of 
me  than  my  prefent  Materials,  fuch  as  I  could  procure,  will 
furnifh  mc  with  5  nor  any  greater  certainty  in  an  Eflay  of  this 
nature,  than  Things  of  this  kind  will  admit  of.     If  a   rcafona- 

A  We 


Tloe  INTRODUCTION. 

blc  Diligence  has  been  ufcd  in  colle^i'mg^  and  due  pains  in  M- 
a^efti/i^y  and  a  religious  Care  in  building  thereupon  (more  than 
which  I  pretend  not  to;  it  may,  1  hope,  be  ilifficient  with 
nil  equitable  judges. 

Maiiy  learned  and  valuable  Men  have  becji  before  employed 
in  the  fame  Deiign  :  But  their  Treatttes   arc    moltly   in  LMtn, 
and  Ibme  of  them  very  fcarce,  and  hard  to  come  at.     I  know 
not  that   any  one  has  hitherto  attempted  a   jult  Treatife  upon 
the  Subjetl  in  our  own  Language,  however  ufeful  it  might  be 
to  the  EngUpj  Readers ;  and  the   more    fo  at  This  time  when 
the  Controverfy  about  the  Tri'aity  is  now  fpread  abroad  among 
nil  Ranks  and  Degrees  of  Men  with    us,  and   the   Athiin;iji^n 
Creed  become   the  Subject  of  common,  and  ordinary   Conver- 
fation.     For  thefe  Reafons,    I  prefumed,    an  Englijh   Treatife 
might  be  moft  proper  and  feafonable  :  Tho' othcrwife,  to  avoid 
the  unfeemly  mixture  of  E?iglijhj  and  Z/z/w    f  which  will  here 
be  ncceflary)  and  becaufe  of  fome   parts   which   none   but  the 
Le/imed  can   tolerably  judge   of;  it   might    be    thought   more 
proper  rather  to  have  written  a  Latin  Treatife,  and  for  the  ufe 
only  of  Scholars.     However,  there  will  be  nothing  very  mate- 
rial but  what  an  Englifb  Reader  may    competently  underftand : 
And  I  Ihall  endeavor  to  lay  before  Him  all  that  has  been  hi- 
therto ufefuUy  obferved,  or  difcover'd  upon  the  Subjecl,  that 
He  may  want  nothing  which  may  be  conceiv'dof  any  moment 
for  the  inabllng  Him  to  form  a  true  judgment.     What  I   bor- 
row from   Others  Ihall  be  fairly   acknowledged  as  I  go  along, 
and  reterr'd  to  it  s  proper  Author,  or  Authors;  it  being  as  much 
my  Defign  to  give  an  Hifiorica^l  Account  of  what   others  have 
done,  as  it  is  to  fupply  what  They   have   left    undone,  fo   far 
as  my  prelent  materials,  leifure,  and   opportunities  may  inable 
me  to  do  it.     Now,  to  prefent  the  Reader  with  a  Sketch  of  my 
Defign,  and'to  fhow  Him  how  one  part  is  to  hang  upon  another, 
my  method  will  be  as  follows. 

I.  Firft,  in  order  to  give  the  clearer  Ide;i  of  what  hath  been 
already  done,  and  of  what  may  be  ftill  wanting,  I  begin  with 
recounting  the  feveral  Conjcdurcs,  or  Difcovcries  of  the 
Leartied  Moderns^ 

2.  Next 


rhe  INTRODUCTION. 

II.  Next,  to  enter  upon  the  matter  it  Sdf,  and  the  Evidence 
proper  to  it,  I  proceed  to  lay  down  the  dired  Tefiimonies  of 
the   Antients  concerning   the  Age  ^  Author ,  and  Vdue  of  This 

Creed. 

III.  To  thcfe  I  fubjoin  an  Account  of  the  antient  Comments 
upon  the  fame  Creed,  being  but  another  kind  of  A-aciem  Te- 

jfimonies. 

IV.  After  Thefe  follows  a  brief  recital  of  the  moft  antient, 
or  otherwife  moft  confidcrable,  M^nufcripts  of  This  Creed, 
which  I  have  either  feen  my  felf,  or  have  had  notice  of  from. 
Others.  This  part,  I  fear,  will  be  in  fome  meafure  imperfcd^ 
for  want  of  a  fuller  fearch  into  the  many  Excellent  Libraries 
we  have  in  England -•>  tho'  I  have  fpcnt  fome  pains  in  fearches 
t)f  that  kind,  and  have  been  obliged  to  the  kind  offices  of 
FxieiTds  in  fearching  for  me. 

V.  Next  to  the  uMa?mfcripts  of  the  Creed  it  felf,  I  fhail  in- 
quire alfo  into  the  antient  Verfiom  of  it,  printed,  or  manu- 
fcript  j  which  will  be  alfo  very  ferviceable  to  ourmain  De%n„ 

VI.  I  come  in  the  next  place  to  treat  of  the  antient  Reception- 
of  this  Creed,  or  Formulary,  in  the  Chriftian  Churches  5  as  being  a 
Point  of  great  moment,  and  what  may  be  more  certm?dy  determin'd 
than  the  Time  of  its  Compofition,  and  may  give  great  Light 
into  it. 

VII.  Thefe  preliminaries  fettled,  to  introduce  to  what  follows , 
I  then  fall   direftly  to  the  darkeft  part  of  all;  namely  to  the 

^Inquiry  after  xhcAge,  ^nd  Author  of  the  Creed:  which  I  difpatch 
in  Two  diftind  Chapters. 

VIII.  Next,  I  lay  before  the  learned  Reader  the  Creed  it  felf 
in  its  Original  Language,  with  the  mod  conliderable  various  Le- 
ciions  ;  together  with  felecl  Palfages  from  antient  Writers,  either 
parallel  to  Thofe  of  the  Creed,  or  explanatory  of  it.  And  left 
the  Englifr?  Reader- fhould  appear  to  be  negleded,  I  fubjoin  the 
Creed  in  Englifl  with  a  running  Englifh  Commentary,  ferving 
much  the  fame  purpofe  with  what  is  intended  by  the  Latin 
Qtiotations  going  before. 

IX.  I  conclude  all  with  a  Brief  Vindication  of  our  own 
Church  in  receiving,  and  ftill  retaining  This  excellent  Formu- 

A  2  lary 


4  The  OPINIONS  of 

lary  of  the  Chriiliaii  Faith ;  cinfwcring  the  mofl:  materia  Ob- 
jeclions  which  have  been  made  againft  us,  on  that  Account ;. 
and  fhcwing  the  Expediency,  and  even  NcceHlty  of  retaining. 
This  Form,  or  fomething  equivalent ,  for  the  prefcrvation  of 
the  ChnlHan  Faith  againfl:  Herefics.  The  Reader^  I  hope,  will 
cxcufe  it,  if  in  compUance  with  Ciiftom,  and  to  fave  my  fclf 
the  Trouble  of  Circumlocution,  1  commonly  fpeak  of  it  under 
the  Name  of  the  Athdnnfidn  Creeds  not  deligning  thereby  to 
intimate,  either  that  it  is  a  Creed  ftrictly  and  properly  fo  called* 
or  that  it  is  of  Athanafiuss  compofi ng :  Both  which  points 
will  be  difcufs'd  in  the  Sequel. 

CHAP.     I. 

The  Opinions  of  the  learned  Moderns  concerning  the  Atha^ 

nafian  Creed, 

A.     D.  T  N   reciting   the   Opinions   of  the  learned   Moderns,    I  need 
T642    \  go  no  higher  than  Gerard  VoJJius:  who  in   his    Treatife   de 
Tribus  Symholis^   publifh'd   in  the  Year    1 642  ,    led  the  way  ta 
a  more  ftrid  and  critical  Iniquity  concerning  This  Creed  than 
had  been  before  attempted.     The  Writers  before.  Him,  moft  of 
Them,  took  it  for  granted  that   The   Creed  was  Atha?i;ijius\, 
without  troubling  Themfclvcs  with  any  very  particular  Inquiry 
into  it:  And  Thofe  few  who   doubted  of  it,  or  afcribed  it  to 
Another,  yet  enter'd  not  clofely  into  the  merits  of  the  Caufc, 
but  went    upon  loofe  Conjedures  rather  than  upon    any  julf 
Rules  of  true  and  folid   Criticiim.     It  will  be  fufficient  there- 
fore to  begin  our  Accounts  from  VoJJitis^  who,  fuice  the  Time 
of  his  writing,  has  been  ever  principally  mention'd,  and  chiefly 
quoted,  by  as  many  as  have  written  upon  the  Subjed,  as  being 
the  firft  and  moft  confiderable  Man  that  has  enter'd   deep  into 
It,  and  treated  ot  it  like  a  C  ritick.     He  endcavour'd  to  lift  the 
matter  thoroughly,  as  far  as  He  was  well  able  to  ^^d  from  Trrated 
Books :  As  to  Aianufcripts  He  cither  wanted  leifure,  or  oppor- 
tunity tp  fcp-tch  for  Them.     The  Refult  of  his   Inquiries  con- 
cluded in  the  following   particulars,  Ibmc  of  them  dubioufly. 

all. 


7he  LEARNED    MODERNS.  j 

all  of  them  modeftly  ofFer'd,  or  propofed  by  Him.      i.  That 
the  Athmidfim  Creed  is   not  Athmafim's.     2.  That  it  was  o- 
riginaily  a  Lutin  Compofure,  and   of  a  Lmn  Author  or  Au- 
thors.    3.  That  it  was  made  in  the  8th  or  9th  Century,  in  the. 
Time  of  P^//%  orofcW/^j  the  GreM-^  and  probably  by  fome. 
French  Divine.     4.  That  the  firft  Time  it  was  produced,  under 
the  Name,  of  Athmafius,  at  leaft,  with  any  Aflurance  and  Con- 
fidence of  it  being  liis,  was  in  the  Year  1233,  when  Pope  Gre- 
gory the  IXth's  Legates  pleaded  it  at   Conftantinople    in  favor 
of  the  rrocejjion  againft  the  Greeks.      5.  That  it  fcarce  ever  ob- 
taind  in  any  of  the  Chriftian  Churches  before  the  Year  1000, 
How  far  Voffius  was  miftaken  in  his  Accounts,  will   appear  in 
the  Sequel.     Thus  far  mud  be  allow'd  Him,  that  He.  managed 
the   Argument    with   great  Learning  and  Judgment,  made  a 
good  ufe  of  fuch  Materials  as  He   was  poflefs'd  of  5  and   tho' 
He  was  not  very  happy  in  determining  the  Age  of  the  Creed;, 
or  the  Time  of  its  Reception,  yet  He  produced  fo  many,  and  fuch 
cogent  Arguments  againft  the  Creed's  being  originally  Greek,  or 
being  made  by  Athanafius,  that  they  could  never  be  anfwer'd. 

The  learned  Fetuvius,  who  in  the  Year  1622  (when  He  j^^^^ 
publiih'd  Epiphmms)  had  fallen  in  with  the  Common  Opinion 
of  This  Creed's  being  Athmafmss,  did  yet  afterward  in  his 
Treatife  of  the  Trhiity,  publifh'd  in  the  Year  1 644,  fpeak  more 
doubtfully  of  it  5  in  the  mean  while  pofitive.  that  it  was  writ- 
ten in  Latin,  * 

The  next  confiderable  Man,  and  who  may  be  juftly  called  a  ^^^^ 
:Pirfi  Writer  in  this  Argu'ment,  as  well  as  Vojjius,  was  our  learned 
V^er.  He  had  a  good  Acquaintance  with  Libraries,  and  Mar 
nufcripts  5  and  was  able  from  Thofe  Stores  to  produce  new  E: 
vidences  which  Voffius  knew  not  of.  In  the  Year  1647,  He 
printed  his  La>tin  Trad  de  Symbolis,  with  a  prefatory  Epiftle  to 
Voffius.  He  there  appeals  to  the  Teftimonies  of  RMram  oiCorhey, 
and  ^nem  Biihop  oi  P^is,  neither  of  them  at  That  Time  made 
publick,  as  alfo  to  Hincmars  of  Rheims  (which  had  been  publilh'd 
but  had  efcaped  Vojfmss  obfervation)  to  prove  that  This  Creed 
had  been  confidently  cited  under  the  Name  of  Athmftfrns  almoO: 

a  Petavius  de  Trin.  1.  7.  c.  8.  p.  391. 

400 


6  7he  OPINIONS  of 

400  Years  before  the  Time  of  Pope  Gregorys  Legates,  the  Time 
let  by  VoJJms.  And  further,  by  Two  Manufcripts  found  in  the 
Cotton  Library,  He  thought  He  might  carry  up  the  Antiquity  of 
the  Creed  to  the  Year  704,  or  even  to  600.  In  fhort,  He 
fcruplcd  not  to  fet  the  Date  of  it  above  tiie  Year  447  :  For  He 
fiippofes  a  Council  of  Spurn,  held  in  that  Year,  to  have  been 
acquainted  with  it,  and  to  have  borrov/ed  the  Filioque  from  it.' 
Thus  far  He,  without  any  more  particular  determination  a- 
bout  either  the  ^ge,  or  the  Author. 

1647  About  the  fame  Time  Dr.  Jerewy  Taylor  {^ftcrwtiTds  Bifhopof 
i)o->i9^  and  Comtor')  publifh'd  his  Liberty  of  Prophefywg^  wherein 
He  expreilcs  his  Doubts  whether  the  Creed  be  juftly  afcribedto 
Athanafim.  But  as  He  had  never  feen  Ufbers's  Treatife,  nor 
ihdccd  Foffius's,  nor,  was  at  that  Time  furnilh'd  with  any  proper 
Afliftanccs  to  inable  Him  to  make  any  accurate  Inquiries  into 
This  matter  5  it  may  fuffice  juft  to  have  mention'd  Him,  in  re- 
gard to  the  defcrvcd  Name  He  has  fuice  born  in  the  Learned 
World. 

1659  Leo  AlUtiiiSj  about  This  Year,  Y'^-m\.cd\\\s  Synt/igm^^de  Symboio 
S.  Athannjli ;  which  no  Doubt  mufl:  be  a  very  ufeful  Piece,  efpe- 
cially  in  relation  to  the  Sentiments  oi  \\\z  Greek  Churches,  and 
the  Reception  of  this  Creed  amongft  them  :  But  I  have  never 
feen  itj  only  I  learn  from  Tentzeliiis  (who  yet  could' never  get 
a  fight  of  it^  and  La,hric'ms,  that  fuch  a  Piece  was  written  by 
AlUt'ms  in  Moder?i  Greek;  in  12°.  publilh'd  at  Ro7»c  in  1658,  or 
t65  9.  It  appears  to  be  very  fcarce,  fince  none  of  the  Learned 
who  have  fince  written  upon  This  Creed  have  either  referr'd 
to  it,  or  given  Extrafts  out  of  it,  fo  £u-  as  I  have  obferved  : 
excepting  only  fomething  of  that  kind  at  Rome,  A.D.  1667,  by 
The  Congregation  for  propagating  the  Faith}' 

i66x  Cardinal  Bo7m,  fome  Years  after,  in  his  Book  de  Bivina  Vfal- 
modia,  mak'es  frequent  mention  of  This  Creed,  touches  but 
(lightly  upon  the  Qiicftion  about  its  Age  or  Author,  takes  fome 

a  I7//er:  dt  S^m(>clij,  p.  24.  N.  B.  Uftjer  went  upon  the  fuppofition  thit  the  Words, 
•  p»ire,  filiac]i*e  frocttJrns,  were  genuine;  and  not  foifted  into  the  CcnfJJlon  of  That 
Council;  as  They  noxv  appear  to  have  bccn^  after  a  more  careful  view  of  the  MSS.  of  bcft 
Kote.  and  g^reati-ft  Antiquity.  ' 

b  F/J.  Tcntzel.  judic.  6;c,p.  147.  "^ 

curfoty 


7he  LEARNED  MODERNS,  y 

ew-trory  notice  of  what  Fo//m  had  faid,  but  neverthelefs  af^ribes 
it  to  Athm^^jhiSy  as  being  compofed  by  Him  while  in  the 
Wcflern  parts,  Tefie  B^ronio  j  relting  his  Faith  upon  B^rom- 
us,  iJS  his  Vouclier. ' 

Our  very  Learned  Bilhop  Pearf on  mKis  Exfofition  of  the  Creed,  1669 
occafionally  deUvers  his  Opinion,  that  the  Athanfifmn  Creed  was 
written  in  Lmin,  and  by  fomc  Member  of  the  LMm  Church.'' 

Our  next  Man  of  Eminent  Charader  is  Pafch^fms  ^efnel,  167$ 
a  celebrated  French  Divine.  In  the  Year  1675,  He  publilh'd  his 
famous  Edition  of  Pope  Leos  Works,  with  feveral  very  valu- 
able DiffertMions  of  his  own.  His  XlVth  contains,  among  other 
matters,  a  particular  Inquiry  about  the  Author  of  this  Creed. 
He  afcribes  it  to  Vigilius  Tapfenfis,x\\Q,  African"^-,  and  fo  well  de- 
fends his  Pofition  that  He  has  almoft  drawn  the  Learned  World 
after  Him.  He  is  look'd  upon  as  the  Father  of  that  Opinion,  be- 
caufe  He  has  fo  learnedly  and  handfomly  fupported  it :  But 
He  is  not  the  iirft  that  efpoufcd  it.  For  LMe,  about  i  5  Years 
before,  had  taken  notice  of  Some  that  had  afcribed  This  Creed 
to  VigiliuSy  at  the  fame  Time  iignifying  his  Dillent  from 
Them  ^ 

The  Year  after  ^efnel,  SandiuSy  the  famous  Ar'mn,  printed  1(575 
a  Second  Edition  of  his  Nucleus  ^c.  \j'\.th.  2i\\  Appendix :  Where- 
in He  corrects  his  former  Judgment  "^  of  This  Creed,  taken  im- 
plicitely  from  P\ffius  5  and  allows,  nay  contends  and  infifts  upon  it, 
that  This  Creed  was  not  only  known,  but  known  under  the  Name 
oi  AthanfifmSy  as  high  at  leaft  as  the  Year  770^.  He  afcribes  it 
bpon  Conjedure  to  onb  Athanafius,  Bifhop  of  Spire  in  Germany^ 
who  died  in  the  Year  642. 

I  ought  not  to  pafs  over  our  very  learned  O^^u-or/^,  tho*  He  ,^  g 
has  entred  very  little  into  the  point  before  us.  He  gives  his  judg- 
ment, in  paiTnig,  of  the  Creed  commonly  called  Athanafian-, 
that  it  was  -written   a  long    time  after   Athanafius  by  fome  other 
Hand.  § 

a  Bona  de  Divina  Pfalmod.  Cap.  16.  Se£t«    18.  p.  864. 

b  Vearfon  on  the  Creed.  Artici  8.  p.  314.  ed.  3. 

c  Qaefncl.  DifTert.  XIV.  p.  729.  &c. 

d  Labbaei  Diflert.  de  Script,  Ecclef.  Tom.   i.  p.  477. 

e  Vid.  Sandii  Nucl.  Hiftor.  Ecclef.  p.  256. 

f  Sandii  Append,  p.  3j-. 

g  Cudworth  Intelled.  Syft.  p.  6%o. 

Henrkm 


S  The  OPINIONS  of 

r68o       Henricus  Hcideggerus  is  a  Writer  whom  I  have  not  feen,  but 
find   mention'd  with  particular  rcfpect  by  Cdfim:    Oudin  j  upon 
whofe  credit,  I  here  take  notice  of  hispubUfhing  at  Zurich  Come 
Sclecl  J)iJ]crt^%tio?iSy  and  his  al'cribing  this  Creed  to  Vigilius  Tap- 
fenfis^  in  his  XVllIth  DilTcrtation.  Tom.   2. 
T^8i       Wolfga,ngGtmdling^  a  German  writer,  the  Year  after  puWifh'd  a 
ihull   Trad,  containing  Notes  upon  a  Httlc  Piece  relating  to 
tJie  Religion  of  the  Creek  Churches,  written  by   Euftratim  Jo~ 
hannides  Zidoivski.  What  is  chiefly  valuable  in    Cimdling,  is  his 
Account  of  the  Greek   Copies  of  this   Creed ;  ( printed  ones  1 
mean)  giving  us  fix  of  them  together.  He  occafionally  expreflcs 
liis  Doubts  whether  the  Creed  be  Atha.nafiH$\yO\:  of  ibmc  later 
Writer/ 
1 683       i  may   next  mention   our  celebrated    Eccleftaftical  Hiftorian, 
Dr.  Cm.'e,  who  about  this  Time  publilli'd  his  Lives  of  the  Fathers, 
and  particularly  oi  Ath/inajim.  His  account  of  This  Creed  is,  that 
it  ^v/ls  never  heard  of  in  the  World  till  above  600  years  after  Atha- 
nafius  vas  dead-^  hut  barely  mention  d  then,  and  not  urged -ivith  a-ny 
tonfidence  till  above  200  years  after,  when  the  Legates  ofPopeQio.- 
gory  the  IXth  produced  and  pleaded  it  at  Conflanti?iopLe}'  The  learned 
Doctor,  it  is  plain,  took  this  Account  from  rb//^//^^,  and  had  never 
feen  ZTfljers  Treatife  j  which  one  may  juftly  wonder  at.  Five  years 
after,  in   his  Hiftoria  Liter  aria,  He    allows  that  This  Creed  had 
been  fpoken  of  by  Theodulphus,  which  was  within  436  years  of 
Athanaftus:  But  not  a  Word  yet  of  any   elder    Teftimony,  or 
Manufcript,  tho'  Both  had  been  difcovered,  and  publickly  taken 
notice  of,  before  This  Time.     He  ftill  contends  that  the  Creed 
obtain'd  not  ni  the  Chriftian  Churches  before   the  ^'ear  1000, 
nor  became  famous  every  where  before  12335  but  inclines  never- 
thclefs  to  aicribe  it  to  Vigilius   Tapferifts,  who  flourifhed   about 
the  Year  484.'-' 
:(6  84       Dodor  Comber,  in   his    Book    intituled,    A  Comp^vnion   to  the 
Temple,  clofes   in   with  the   old   Tradition   of  the   Creed  being 

a  Gundl'ingW  notse  in  Ruftratii  Johannidis  Zialowski  Dclincationcm  Ecclcfix  Grzcx.p. 
•68.  &c. 

b  Cave:  l»/<r   of  Athannfim.  Sc£l.  VI.  Art.  lo. 
X  Cave.  Hiftor.  Litcrar.  Vol.  I.  p.  I46.  J71. 

Atha- 


Ihe     LE/JRNED     MODERNS.  ^ 

Arhan^fiuss',  repeating  the  moft  eonfiderable  Arguments  ufually 
pleaded  for  that  Perlwafion.* 

To  Him  I  may  Subjoin  Bilhop  ^^i^m^^,  who  perhaps  about  1684 
This  Time  might  write  his  Thoughts  on  the  Creed,  in  his 
Bxpofitton  of  our  Articles,  pubhlh'd  after  his  Death.  He  was  fo 
diligent  and  knowing  a  Man,  that  had  He  been  to  confidei 
This  matter  in  his  Uter  years.  He  would  certainly  have  given 
a  more  particular  and  accurate  Account  than  that  which  now 
appears.  He  afcribes  the  Creed  to  Athemafms,  but  with  fome 
diffidence  J  and  thinks  it  might  have  been  originally  a  Greek 
Compofition,  but  that  the  old  Greek  Copies  have  been  loft,  and 
that  the  only  remaining  ones  are  Verfiom  from  the  Latin.'' 

C^ib^JJ'miiiSj  in  his  Notitia  Ecclefmjlic^,  hath  a  Ihort  Diflerta-  j  5  3  < 
tion  about  the  Author  of  This  Creed.=  He  contents  Himfelf 
w4th  repeating  .^efneVs  Arguments,  to  prove  that  Athan^fita 
was  not  the  Author  of  it,  determining  nothing  farther,  lave 
only  that  it  was  originally  a  Lutm  Compofure,  known  ano^ 
cited  by  the  Council  of  Autun  about  the  Year  670. 

The  celebrated  Dnpin^  in  his  Ecclefidftical  Hijlory,  fumms  up  i^s- 
the  reafons  ufually  urged  to  prove  that  the  Creed  \s  none  of 
AthannfmsSj  and  aflents  to  them.  He  determines  with  confi- 
dence that  it  was  originally  a  Ldtin  compofition,  and  not  known 
till  the  Vlth  Century  j  repeats  Father  J^efnel's  reafons  for 
afcribing  it  to  VigilmsTapfenfis,  and  acquiefccs  in  them,  as  ha- 
ving nothing  more  certain  in  this  matter.'^ 

About  the  fame  Time  Te/^tzelm,  a  learned  Luther/inj  pub-  \6^y 
iifh'd  a  little  Treatife  up\5n  the  Subject  j^  fetting  forth  the  feveral 
Opinions  of  Learned  Men  concerning  This  Creed.  He  is  very  full 
and  accurate  in  his  CoUedion,  omitting  nothing  of  moment 
that  had  been  faid  before  Him  by  any  of  the  learned  Modcrnsy 
but  bringing  in  fome  further  materials,  from  his  own  fearches, 
to  add  new  Light  to  the  Subjed.  He  determines  nothing  5  but 

a  Comber  Companion  to  the  Temple  p.  144. 
b  Beveridi2e  on  the  ^th  Article,  p.    162. 
e  CabafTutii  Notit.  Ecclef.  Diflert.    19,  p.  5-4. 
d  Dupin  Ecclef.  Hiftor.  Vol.  ll.  p.  ^j-. 

e  Ernefll  Temzelii  judicia  Eruditorum  De  Symb.  Athanaf.  ftudiofecolkaa.  Goth£.Ano 
D.  1687.  ^ 

B  leaves 


10  7he    OPINIONS    of 

leaves  it  to  the  Reader  to  make  a  Judgment   :is  He  fees  cauCc 
from  a  full  view  of  the  Pleadings. 

16  8  8  I  may  plaee  iiere  the  learned  P^g^j  \\  ho  in  his  Critick  upon  Baro- 
wW  palles  his  judgment  of  This  Creed:  'v/hieh  being  the  fame 
with  J^.cjners,  and  little  more  than  Repetition  from  Him,  I 
need  not,  be  more  particular  about  Him. 

1690  H;i;}iond  L'Ejlrange,  in  his  Alli;ince  of  T>ivine  Off.ces,  falls  in  with 
the  now  current  Opinion  j  ^  that  The  Creed  is  not  AthmafiusSy 
nor  later  than  the  Vlth  Century. 

1 693  Jf^fiph  Anthelmiy  a  learned  Paris  Divine,  firfl:  began  dircdly 
to  attack  ,^efnel\  Opinion  5  and  to  fap  the  reafons  on  which 
it  was  founded.  He  publilh'd  a  particular  Bijjertation  to  That  pur- 
pofe,'^^  of  which  I  have  feen  feveral,  and  pretty  large  Extrads, 
but  could  never  yet  get  the  Book  it  felf  however  defirous  of 
it,  or  hov/ever  ferviccable  it  migiit  be  to  my  Defign.  He  afcribes 
the  Creed  to  Fmcentius  LirinenfiSj  who  flourilh'd  in  the  Year 
43  4- 

The  famous  Tillemont  wrote  after  Anthelmius^  for  He  makes 
mention  of  his  Treatife,  and  examines  his  Hypothcfis :  And  yet 
it  could  not  be  long  after?  for  He  died  in  the  Year  1697.  He 
commends  Mr.  Anthdmts  performance  as  a  confiderablc  Work  ; 
but  inclines  ftill  rather  to  ^efnel's  Opinion.  All  that  He 
pronounces  certai?iy  is,  that  the  Creed  is  none  of  Athana- 
Jiuss,  but  yet  as  old  as  the  Jixth  Century,  or  older.^ 

(698  ^'^  ^^^^  ^'*^^^  1698,  AIo?itfau,con  publiih'd  his  new  and  accurate 
Edition  of  Athan/ifms's  Works.  In  the  fecond  Tbw^,  He  has  an 
Excellent  Dillertation  upon  This  Creed;  the  bell  that  is  extant, 
either  for  on^er  and  method ^  or  for  Plenty  of  ufeful  Matter. 
The  Sum  of  his  Judgment  is,  that  the  Creed  is  certainly  none 
of  Athanajiiiss,  nor  yet  Vigiims  Tdpfe-fifiss,  nor  fufficiently  proved 
to  belong  to  Vince?2tius  Lirinenjis  j  but  probably  enough  compos'd 
about  the  Time  of  Vincent'mSy  and  by  a  Callicn?^  A\^riter  or 
Writers.- 

a  figi-  Critic,  in  Baron.   An.  ^40.  n.  tf .  p.  44.0, 

b  L'Eftnngc  Alliance  rf  Divine  Offices-  Ch.  4.  p.  99. 

c  Jofephi  ^nthelmii  Dilqiiilitio  de  Symbolo   Athana'liano.  Vitrif.    i6y;.  Svo. 

d  Tillemont.   Mcmoircs.  Tom.  8-   p.   667. 

c  Syti)boliim  j^ucimiue  Athanalio  iucunftantcr  abjudicandun>  arbitramur  — 


1695 


In 


The     LEARNED    MODERNS,  ii 

In   the    fame  year,    Ludovic:  Antonius  Muratorms^  an   Italmn^  169S 
Writer,  publilh'd  a  fecond  Tome  of  Anecdotii  out  of  the  Am^ 
hrofim  Library  at  Milm.     Among  other  Manufcripts  there,  He 
had  met  with  an  Antient  Comment  upon  This  Creed,  afcribed  to 
Venmtim  FortunMus,  who  w^as  Bifhop  of  PoicJiers  in  Frmce  in 
the  Vlth  Century.     He  pubUllies  the  Comment,  together  with  a 
DiJJertMton  of  his  own  concerning  the  Author  of  the  Creed  : 
concUiding,  at  length,  that  Venmtius  Vortunatus^  the  certain  Au- 
thor of  the  Commenty  might   pollibly   be   Author  of  the  Creed 
too.  He  entirely  rejeds  the  opinion  of  Thofc  that  would  afcribc 
it  to  Athmafius,  and  difapproves  of  ^efneH  perfwafion  about 
Vigilius  Taffenfis;  but  fpeaks  favourably  of  Anthelmis,  as   com- 
ing neareft  to  the  Truth.* 

Fabricms,  in  his  Bihliotheca  Grdca,''  (highly  valued  by  all  Men  lyiz 
of  Letters)  gives  a  Summary  Account  of  the  Sentiments  of  the 
Learned  relating  to  This  Creed.  His  Conclufion  from  all  is, 
that  thus  far  may  be  depended  on  as  certain ;  that  the  Creed 
was  not  compofed  by  AthanaJiuSj  but  long  after  in  the  Vth 
Century,  wrote  originally  in  LMin,  and  afterwards  tranflated 
into  Greek. 

In  the  fame  year,  the  learned  Le  ^ien  publilh'd  a  new  E-  171^ 
dition  of  Dam^fcen,  with  previous  Dijjertations  to  it.  In  the 
firft  of  thefe,  He  has  feveral  very  confiderable  Remarks,  concern- 
ing the  Age,  and  Author  of  the  Athdrmfmn  Creed.  He  appears 
inclinable  to  afcribe  it  to  Pope  Anaftajius  I,  (who  entred  upon 
the  Pontificate  in  the  year  398)  becaufe  of  fome  antient  Te- 
ftimonies,  as  well  as  Manufcripts,  carrying  the  Name  of  Anafla- 
fius  in  the  Title  of  the  Creed:  But  He  is  pofitive  that  the  Creed 
muft  be  fet  as  high  as  the  Age  of  St.  Aujlin,  Vincentim,^  and 
Vigilius!^  And,  as  y^;^^/?^/;^/^^  before  had  made  light  of  the  fuppo- 

Afro  itaque  Vigdlo  nihil  ell  quod  fymbolum  ^icmque  tribuatiin  — — —  "on  aegrc 
quidem  conceirerim  Vtncentit  &tnte  editam  tuifle  illam  Fidei  profclTionem.  -  Hand  ab': 
re  conjeaant  Viri  erudit'i  in  GdWn  illud   {fymbolum)    fuilTe  elucubratum.  Mor^tf.  Diatrib. 

P-  I'i-l-  ... 

a  Hzc  &  fimilia  pluribus  pertradlavit  cruditilTimus  ^nthe^minu  cuius  opinicm,  quo- 
rumnam  eruditorum  iufFragia  acceflerint,  me  penitus  fugit :  Fatcor  tamen  ad  ventatem 
omnium  maxime  illam  accedere.  Murator.  Tom.  2.  p.  212. 

b  Fabricii  Biblioth.  Gr3eca>  Vol.  V.  p.  5  if.  ,    . 

c  Omnino  fateri  cogor  Auguftini,  Vincentii,  8c  Vig'di't  aetate  cxtitiOe  expofitioncm  lati- 
aam  Fjdei,  qus  poilmodum  Athmctfio  Magna  attribui  meruerit.  Le  ^iien  Difllrc  i.p  9. 

B  2  m\oi\ 


:t  The    0  P  I H  JONS     cf 

fition  that  the  internal  Ch^iraUcn  of  the  Creed  Ihow  it  to  be 
later  then  Eufi^cljes ;  He  makes  as  light  of  the  other  fuppolltion 
of  the  rntcmd  chnr^.clcrs  lettiiig  it  later  than  Ncftoritts. 

<-i4.  Nutiilis  Jllcxandcrs  new  Edition  of  his  EccUjmjtical  Hiftory^ 
bears  Date  A.  D  1714.  He  had  cxaniin'd  into  our  prelent 
QiielUon  Ibme  years  before  (about  1676  when  his  firft  Edition 
came  abro.\d)  lubfcribing  to  the  Opinion  of  J^cfnel:  And 
He  does  not  appear  to  have  altcr'd  his  mind  fmce.  He  takes 
notice  of  Anthelmi\  Opinion,  and  fpeaks  rcfpedfully  of  it., 
as  alfo  of  the  Author  5  but  prefers  the  other  Hypotheiis.  "^ 

2715  I  ought  not  here  to  omit  the  very  worthy  and  learned  Mr. 
Bi/igham,  to  whom  the  Public k  is  lb  highly  indebted  for  his 
Origiiics  Ecclefmfiicd,  colleded  with  great  Judgment,  and  digeft- 
ed  into  a  clear  Method.  He  had  a  proper  OccaP.on  to  fay 
fomcthing  of  the  Athanafmn  Creed,  in  palling,  and  very  briefly. 
He  obferves,  that  it  was  not  compofed  by  Athmnfius,  but  by  a 
later  and  ^a  Ldtm  writer  j  and  particularly  Vigilius  Tapfenfis;  re- 
ferring to  fuch  learned  Moderns  as  I  have  above  mention'd, 
for  the  proof  of  itj  and  giving  no  more  than  ihort  Hints  of 
their  reafons.'' 

T-Tvi^  The  learned  Dr.  Clarke  pf  St.  James  s,  in  his  fecond  Edition 
of  his  Scripture  Doctrine,^  gives  us  his  laft  Thoughts  in  relation 
to  This  Creed.  Referring  to  Dr.  Cmje,  He  informs  us,  that 
This  Creed  -ivas  7iever  feen  till  about  the  year  Soo,  ?^ear  400 
years  after  the  Death  of  Athanafms  (They  are  his  own  words) 
nor  'was  received  i)i  the  Church  till  fo  very  late  as  about  the  year 
1000.  Yet  Dr.  Cave  does  not  fay,  -was  never  feen  (for  HcHim- 
fclf  afcribes  it  to  Vigilius  Tapfenfis  of  the  5  th  Century)  but  only 
that  it  was  not  quoted  before  the  year  800,  or  nearly ;  which 
yet  is  a  very  great  miftake.  What  the  learned  Do<n:or  intended 
by  faying  about  the  year  800,  and  yet  only  near  /^oo-. years  after 
the  Death  of  Athanafms^  or,  as  He  elfewhere'^  cxprelles  it, 
.above  3  00  years  after  the  death  of  Athanafius^  I  do  not  under- 

1  Natal.  Alcxand.  Eccl.  Hift.  Tom.  IV.  p.  1 1 1. 

b  Bingham's   Antiquities  of  the  Chnfiian  Church.  Vol.  IV.  p.  II 8.  &C» 
z  Clarke's  5cf//i/.  Docir»  p.  379    id.  Ed. 
•     d  Clarke's  Scrip,  Doclr.  p.  .447.  ift.  Ed.        ' 


The  LEARNED    MODERNS.  ^  |. 

Hand ;  but  muft  leave  to  Thofe  that  can  compute  the  Di- 
ftance  between  37.5  (the  lateft  year  that  Athmtafms  is  ever 
fuppofed  to  have  hved)  and  the  year  800.  I  am  periwaded,  the 
Dodor  was  thinking,  that  if  Athanafms  had  lived  to  the  year 
400,  then  theDiftance  had  been  juft  400  years  5  but  as  he  died 
27  years  before,  the  Diftance  muft  be  fo^  much  the  lefsy  when  it 
is  quite  the  co^^trary. 

The  laft  Man  that  has  given  his  Sentiments  in  relation  to  This  1,722 
Creed,  is  Cajimirus  Oudinus,  in  his  new  Edition  of  his  Supplement 
( now  called  a  Comment  ply j)  to  the  Ecclefinftkd  Writers.  I  need, 
fay  no  more  than  that  He  does  not  feem  to  have  fpent  much 
pains  in  re-examining  this  Subjed,  but  refts  content  with  his  firft 
Thoughts  J  afgribing  the  Creed,  with  ^efnel,  to  Vigilius-  Tap^ 
fenfis.  * 

Thefe  are  the  principal  JHodems  that  have  fallen  within  my 
Notice  :  And  of  thefe,  the  nioft  confiderable  are  VoJJius,  Ujher, 
^efnely  TentzelmSy  Anthelmms,  Tillemmty  Mountfducon,  Mum- 
tortus,  and  Le  ^ien ;  as  having  particularly  ftudied  the  Sub= 
jed,  and  ftruck  new  Light  into  it,  either  furnifhing  frefh  mate- 
rids  5  or  improving  the  old  by  new  Obfervations*  Some 
perhaps  may  wiHi  to  have  the  feveral  Opinions  of  the  Mo- 
derns thrown  into  a  narrower  Compafs  :  For  which  reafon  I . 
have  thought  it  not  improper  to  fubjoin  the  following  Tdle, 
which  will  reprefent  all  in  one  view,  for  the  eafe  and  conve= 
niency  of  every  common  Reader. 

^  F/V,  Oudin  Commcntar.  de  Sdtptor.  Eccl.  Vol,  i ".  p.  345*,  1 448.  1 3  laL 


A  Dnl 


14 


The    OPINIOl^S    of,  &c. 


A.D.I        Writers         |  Author  of  the  I  whit    O-ntury  I     What  Year     I  When  recicv'd. 
I  (         Cieed.  j     compof.d  in     |        compofed.       | 


164,2!  VofTius 


I A    Latin     Autho!| 


jnot  IJcfore  6oo^\     A    D.    1000 


i644|Pctavius 


I  Ooubtiul 


1047I  hi/lHi>  U flier 

1                                 1 

Vih 

1 

Before  447       | 

Before  8f  1 

1647I  Bi/ljop  T»yIor 

not  AthaHJifins      | 

! 

i 

l6f9|Lco  Allatius 

1                                 1 

1 

1 

l66x\^ar^l.  Bona 

ithanaftus  AUx.  \ 

iVrh 

1 

340            j 

166^1  BipJp  Pcarfon 

1  \    Latin   Author   j 

1 

1 

i67jjl'archa(.Quefnel 

I'igtltHi  'lapjenpi    1 

Vth 

1 

484           t 

Before  670 

1676I      Sandius 

j  Athanifi-  of  Spire  ( 

Vllth 

I 

Before  641       ( 

Before  770 

ifiy'^IOr  Ciidvvorth 

1  '.w   Arh^mftus     \ 

\tter  the  IVib     | 

1 

1680  (Heideggcrus 

\i^'gil:tti  Tapfenfii  | 

Vih 

1 

+84            1 

i68il\V/jif   Giin>'.liniJ 

j')oubrful                 1 

1 

1 

l6S;|  ''I  Cive 

1  'yijiLtfi  T.%pltnfts   1 

Vth 

4S4            1 

loco 

i  6'^4\  )r  Comber 

\Athanafius    A!ex\ 

I  Vth 

iV>          1 

i6b^p77^)p  Be.Cii.lp;(. 

J  d  h^mjita    Ale:<..\ 

iVrh 

1 

Befbre  8fO 

i68'|Cabanutius 

j  A  Latin  Author    j 

1 

Before  670 

i687ln)upin 

\Vtgil$us  Tapfenfii   \ 
1   )oubtfiil                 1 

Vth 

1      484      1 

i68-|Tentzeii.is 

i6t    1  'h^i 

\"igUiui  iupenp^     j 

Vth 

l69f|   lini.    L'iOrane 

'(  1  lot    Athanajiut     | 

j      Before  600 

160^1  A-rhelmiMS 

1  VtnrentiuiLtrinen^ 

V(h 

1      Before  4fo 

i69f|T)llcmonr 

[nor  A'hanafiti-' 

VIrh 

or 

ibonf 

r 

l69S|Montfaucon 

1  A  Galilean  writci 

s    \Vfnant.Fo>-tunatii. 

1  A  Latin   Author 

Vth 

Before  670 

i699|Ant.   Muratoriu 

VIrh 

1                 ^70 

I     800 

i7ii|Fabricius 

Vth 

I      66^ 

17  1  i|Le  (^uicn 

\  AnaJia/iHS  i. 

I  Vth, 

or 

Vth 

1     Bcture  401 

1714!  Natal;    Alcxanc 

C)\l'^igilius  Tapfenfis 

1     Vth 

1              4S4 

171  j-j  vlr  bingham 

1  '.'igiliHi  1  ap/enjii 

Vth 

1      670 

i7i()|nr  Clarke 

|noubrfil 

|VII.h. 

or 

Vlllr 

1      looo 

jyialOudio 

\l^igiliui  Tapfenfis 

1      Vih 

I             484 

a  According  to  VoCCius'sln/l  Thoughts,  in  a  pofihiimous  Work:   Nequc  ante 
Gcntefimum,  tufc  oftendimus  in  libro  dc  Symbolis.  Vojf.  Harm.  Evang.N/.  1. 


annum  fuiflc  Scx- 
c.  13.  p.xif. 

CHAP. 


CHAP.     II. 

Antient    Tejiimonies. 

HAVING  taken  a  view  of  the  Modems^  in  relation  to  the 
Creed,  we  may  now  enter  upon  a  Detail  of  the  Antient s, 
and  their  Tefiimonies ,  by  which  the  Moderns  muft  be  tried.  My 
Defign  is  to  lay  before  the  Reader  all  the  Origind  Evidence  I 
can  meet  with,  to  give  any  Light  either  into  the  Age,  or  Au- 
thor  of  the  Creed,  or  its  Reception  in  the  Chriftian  Churches ; 
that  fo  the  Reader  may  be  able  to  judge  for  Himfelf  concern- 
ing the  Three  particulars  now  mention'd,  which  are  what  I  con- 
ftantly  bear  in  my  Eye,  producing  nothing  but  with  a  view  to 
one,  or  more  of  them. 

Antient  Tefiimonies  have  been  pretended  from  Gregory  Nazian- 
z^eny  Gaudentius  Brixienfis^,  St.  Auftin^  and  ifidorus  Hifpdlenfis,  of 
the  4th,  5  th,  and  6th  Centuries.  But  they  have  been  fince 
generally,  and  juftly  exploded  by  the  Learned,  as  being  either 
Spurious,  ox.  foreign  to  the  Point ;  and  therefore  I  conceive  it  very 
needlefs  to  take  any  further  notice  of  them.  As  to  ^.otations 
from  our  Creed,  or  Comments  upon  it,  falling  within  the  com- 
pafs  of  the  Centuries  now  mention'd  j  if  there  be  any  fuch,Thcy 
Ihall  be  confider'd  under  other  Heads,  diftind  from  That  oi  An- 
tient Tefiimonies,  properly  fo  called,  to  be  treated  of  in  This 
Ckflpter.  \, 

The  old  eft  of  this  kind,  hitherto  difcovered,  or  obferved,  is  570 
That  of  the  Council  of  Autun  in  Trance,  under  Leodegarius,  or  St. 
Leger,  the  Bilhop  of  the  Place  in  the  Vllth  Century.  There  is 
fomc  Difpute  about  the  year  when  the  Council  was  held,  whe- 
ther in  661,  or  666,  or  670.  The  laft  is  moft  probable,  and 
moft  generally  embraced  by  learned  Men.  The  words  of  this 
Council,  in  Efigliflj  run  thus  :  "  If  any  Presbyter,  Deacon,  Suhdeacon, 

a  Si  quis  Presbyter,  Diaconus,  Subdiaconus,  vel  Clericus  Symbclum  quod  Sando  in- 
fpirante  Spiritu  Apoftoli  tradideriint,  Sc  Fidem  SanHi  Athanafii  PrAfults  irreprehenfibiliter 
non  reccnfuerit }   ab  Epiicopo    coadcmnctiir.  Aninfiodun.   SmoJ.  Harduin.  Tam.  3.  p. 

or 


>c  ANTIENT    TESTIMONIES. 

"  or  Cierk,  doth  not  unreprovably   recite  the   Creed  which  the 

"  ApojHes  dclivcr'd  by  hilpiratioii  of  rhc   Holy-Ghoft,  and  alio 

^'^  The  Ffiith  of  ihe  holy  VrcUte  Athati^-^jms,  kt  Him  be  ccnfurcd 

*'  by  the  Dilhop."-'     By  The  Faith  of  Ath;inajius  is  here  meant  what 

wc  now  call  the  Jthanajia/i  Creed  j  as  may  be  reafonably  pleaded 

from  the  Titles  \\'hich    This  Creed  bore  in    the  earlier  Times, 

before  it  came  to  have  the  name  of  a  Creed:  which  Titles  fhall 

be   exhibited   both  from    Manufcripts,    and   written   evidences 

in  the  Sequel.     Yet  it  mull:  not  be  dillembled  that  Pafebrochitss, 

a  learned  Man,  and  whom   I  find  cited   with  Approbation  by 

Mur^itoriuSj    is  of  opinion  that  the /W//?  o/'y^//?;?;;^^;,  here  men- 

rion'd,  means  the  Nicene  Creed,  which  Atha^nnfius  had  fome  Hand 

in,  and  whereof  He  was  the  great  Defender.  I  can  by  no  means 

come  into  his  Opinion,  or  allow  any  force  to  his  reafonings.  He 

asks ;  why  Ihould  the  Nicene  Creed  be  omitted,  and  noc  men- 

tion'd  with  the  Apojlles)  And  why  Ihould  the  Ath^najianj  not 

then  ufed  in  the  Sacred  Offices,  be  recommended  fo  carefully, 

without  a  word  of  the  Nicene?  I  anfwer,  becaufe    it  does  not 

appear  that  the  Nicene  Creed  was  fo  much  taken  notice  of  at  That 

Time  in  the  Gallican  Churches,  while  the  ApjlolicM,  or  Roman 

Creed,  made  ufe  of  in  ]japtilm,  in  the   Wejlern   Churches,  in- 

ftead  of  the  Nicene  (  which  prevailed  in  the  Ea^)  in  a  manner 

fuperfeded  it:  Which  no  one  can  wonder  at  who  confiders  how 

prevailing  and  univerfal  the  Tradition    had   been  in  the  Latin 

Church,  down  from  the  5th  Century  at  lead,  that  the  ^/o/?^//- 

cal  Creed  was  compofed  by  the   i  2  Apoftles,  and  therefore  as 

jfacred,  and  of  as  great  Authority  as  the  infpired  writings  them- 

felves.     Befides  that  it  appears  from  Hincmar,  who  will  be  cited 

in  his  place,  that  it  was  no  ftrange  Thing,  even  fo  low  as  his 

Time,  about  850,  to  recommend  the   Athanajia?^  Creed  along 

with  the   ApoJlleSy    without  a  word  of  the    Nicene.     And  why 

a  Atcjui,  ut  cruditiflTime  adnotavit  CI.  P.  Papebrochius,  in  Rcfponf.  ad  cxhibitionem  Er- 
ror, par.  2.  Art.  13.  n.  3.  verbis  iliis  FiJem  S.  Athanafii,  niinimc  Symbolum  Athana- 
fianuw  defignatur,  fed  quidem  Nicanttm,  in  quo  claborando  plurimum  infudaflTc  Athana- 
Jinm  verifimile  eft.  Etcnim  cur  Apojiolico  Symbolo  commcndato  Kic<niJtm  prxtermifil- 
fent  Auguflodunenfes  Patres?  Cur  Athanafiani  Symholi,  cujus  tunc  nullus  erat  ufus  in  fa- 
cris,  cognitionem  cxcgifTcnt,  Nianumque  nc  uno  quidem  vcrbo  commernoraficnt?  Mu- 
r/nor.  AnecdQt,  Tom.  1.  p.  jij. 

N  Ihould 


AKTIENT    TESTIMONIES, 

iliould  it  be  thought  any  objedion  againft  the  Athanfifii^n  Creed, 
that  it  was  not  at  That  Time  received  into  the  Sacred  Offices 
(fuppofmg  it  really  was  not,  which  may  be  queftion'd)  when  it 
is  certain  that  the  Nkene  was  not  yet  received  into  the  SMred 
offices  in  Fmnce^  nor  till  many  years  after,  about  the  Time  of 
Pepm,  or  of  Chiles  the  Grent  ?  There  is  therefore  no  Force  at 
all  in  the  Argument  of  Papebrochms :  But  there  is  this  ftrong 
prejudice  againft  it,  that  the  Title  there  given  is  a  very  common 
Title  for  the  Athdniifmn  Creed,  and  not  for  the  Nicene.  Nor  would 
the  Fathers  of  that  Council  have  been  fo  extravagantly  fond  of 
the  name  of  Athanafius,  as  to  think  it  a  greater  Commendation 
of  the  Creed  of  Nice  to  call  it  after  Him,  than  to  call  it  the 
Nicene.  There  is  then  no  reafonable  Doubt  to  be  made  but 
that  the  Council  of  Autun,  in  the  Camn,  intended  the  Athanafmn- 
Creed-,  as  the  beft  Criticks,  and  the  generality  of  the  Learned 
have  hitherto  believed. 

But  there  are  other  Objedions  of  real  weight  againft  the  E- 
vidence  built  upon  This  Camn.  i.  Oudin  makes  it  a  queftion 
whether  there  was  ever  any  Council  held  under  Leodega- 
rius,  a  Suffragan  Bilhop  under  the  Arch-Bifhop  of  LyoTis,  having 
no  Metropolitical  Authority.*  But  it  may  fuffice,  if  the  Coun- 
cil was  held  at  Amun,  while  He  was  Bilhop  of  the  place,  a 
good  reafon  why  He  Ihould  be  particularly  mention'd;  efpe- 
cially  confidering  the  worth  and  Fame  of  the  Man  :  To  lay 
nothing  of  the  dignity  of  his  See,  which  from  the  Time  of 
Gregory  the  GreM,  had  been  the  Second,  or  next  in  dignity  to 
the  Metropolitical  S^zo'i  Lyons.  Nor  do  I  perceive  any  Force  in 
Oudins  objedion  againft  St.  Leger\  holding  a  Diocefan  Synod  ('for 
a  Provincial  Synod  is  not  pretended)  tho'  He  was  no  Metropoli- 
tan. 2.  A  ftronger  Objedion  is,  that  the  Cano-a  we  are  con- 
cern'd  with,  cannot  be  proved  to  belong  to  the  Council  held 
under  Leodegariiis.  If  is  not  found  among  the  Ca?ions  of  that 
Council  publiih'd  by  Sirmondus  from  the  Manufcripts  of  the 
Library  of  the  Church  of  Angers,  but  it  is  from  another  Colle- 
dion,  out  of  the  Library  of  the  Monaftery  of  St.  Bcnignus  of 
Dijon,  with  This  Title  only  5  Canones  Auguftodun^nfes  :  So  that  one 

a  Oudin.  Comment.  <Ie  Script.  Ecclef.  Tom.  i.  p.  34S. 

C  can- 


7<50 


,8  ANTIENT    TESTIMONIES. 

cannot  be  certain  whether  it  belongs  to  the  Synod  under  St. 
Lenr^  ou  to  Ibmc  other  Synod  of  Autun  much  later.  It  muft 
be  own'd  that  the  Evidence  can  amount  to  no  more  than  pro- 
bable prcfumption,  or  conjedurc.  ^^'hercfore  Dufm,^  Temz^e- 
Ifus,  ^  Muratorius;;  and  Oudiu^  do  not  Icruplc  to  throw  it  afide 
as  of  too  fufpeded  credit  to  build  any  thing  certain  up- 
on :  And  even  ^^freh  exprelVcs  fome  diflatisfaclion  about 
it  5  only,  in  rcfpcd  to  fome  great  Names,  fuch  as  Sirnmidus^ 
Peter  Le  Lamde^  Godfr.  HcrmdntiuSj  &c.  He  is  willing  to  ac- 
quiefcc  in  it.  To  whom  we  may  add  LMe^,  Le  Coint^j  Cuba-Jjutius}^ 
Vagi}  Tillemont^  Montfducon}  Ta>hricim^  Harduin,^  and  our 
learned  Antiquary  Mr.  Bingham:-^  who  all  accept  it  as  genuine, 
but  upon  probable  perfwafion,  rather  than  certain  Convidlion.  Nei- 
ther do  I  pretend  to  propofe  it  as  clear  and  undoubted  Evidence, 
but  probable  only,  and  fuch  as  will  be  much  confirm'd  by  other 
Evidences  to  be  mention'd  hereafter. 

Reginoj  Abbot  of  Pro?H  in  Germany^  an  Author  of  the  pth,  and 
loth  Century,  has,  among  other  CoUeftions,  fome  Articles  of  In- 
quirjy  fuppofed  by  Bduzius  the  Editor  to  be  as  old,  or  very  near- 
ly, as  the  Age  of  Boniface  Bifhop  of  Mentz,^  who  died  in  the 
year  754.  In  thofe  Articles,  there  isone  tothispurpofe:  "Whe- 
''  ther  the  Clergy  have  by  Heart  Athanafius  s  TraEi  upon  The  Faith 
'■^  of  the  Trinity  J  beginning  with,  ivhofoever  -will  be  faved^  &c. 
This  Teftimony  I  may  venture  to  place  about  760,  a  Uttlc  after 
the  Death  of  Boniface. 

a  Dupin.  Eccl.  Hift.    Vol,  r>  p.  3$. 
b  Tentzel.  Jiidic.  Erud.  p.  61.  &c. 
c  Murator.  Anecdot.  Ambrof.  Tom,  i.  p.  iij. 
d  Cafim.  Gudin.  Vol.  1.  p.  348. 
e  Quefnel.  DifTcrt.  XI V.  p.  731. 
f  Labb.  DifTcrt.  de  Script.  Ecclef.  Tom.  i-  p.  478. 
g  Le  Coint.   Annal.  Franc,  ad  Anno  663.  n.  ii. 
h  Cabaflut.  Notit  Eccl.  DifTcrt.  19.  p.  5+. 
i  Pagi  Crit.  in  Baron.  Ann.  340  n.  6. 
k  Tillcmont  Memoircs.  Vol.  8.  p.  668. 
1  Montfauc.  Diatrib.  p.  720. 
m  Fabric.  Bibl.  Graec.  Vol.  j-.  p.  3 1 6. 
n  Harduis.  Concil.  Tom.   3.  p.  I016. 
o  Bingham,  Origin.  Eccl.  Vol.  4.  p.   1 10. 

p  Si  Sermonem  Athanafti  Epifcopi  de  Tide  SanHi  TritiUat'is,  cujus  initium  eft,  ^mcun- 
Hueiult  SdvHs  ejfe.  mcmoritcr  tcncat.  Rr^in.  dc  Difcipl.  Ecc!en\l.  1. 

The 


AKTIENT    TESTIMONIES.  ,5) 

The  Council  oi Frmkfirt,  in  Germany,  in   their  33ci  Canon  794 
give  orders,  that  "The  Cutholick  Faith  of  the  holy  Trinity,  and 
^-^  Lord's  Prayer,  and  Creed  be  fet  forth  and  deUvered  to  all.' 

Fojfftus  ^  underftands  the  Canon  of  the  Two  Creeds  Nicene  and 
Apofiolical.  But  I  know  not  why  the  Apojiolical,  or  Soman,  Creed 
fliould  be  emphatically  called  Symbolmn  Fidei,  The  Creed,  in  op- 
pofition  to  the  Nicene  5  nor  why  the  Nicene  fhould  not  be  called 
a  Creed,  as  well  as  the  other,  after  the  ufual  way.  Befides,  that 
Fides  Catholica  &cc.  has  been  more  peculiarly  the  Title  of  the 
Athanafian  Creed :  And  it  was  no  uncommon  Thing,  either 
before  or  after  This  Time,  to  recommend  it  in  this  manner  to- 
gether with  the  Lords  Prayer,  and  Apofiles  Creed,  jull  as  we  find 
here.  And  nothing  could  be  at  that  Time  of  greater  fervice 
againft  the  Herefy  of  Felix  and  Elipandus  (which  occafion*d  the 
calling  of  the  Council)  than  the  Athanafian  Creed.  For  which 
reafons,  till  I  fee  better  reafons  to  the  contrary,  I  muft  be  oi 
opinion  that  the  Council  of  Frankfort  in  their  3  3d  Canon  intend- 
ed the  Athanafian  Creed,  which  Charles  the  Great  had  a  particular 
refped  for,  and  had  prefented  in  Form  to  Pope  Adrian  I.  above 
20  years  before  5  as  we  fhall  fee  in  Another  Chapter. 

Theodulphus,  Bifhop  oi  Orleans  in  France,  has  aTreatile  of  the  %q^ 
Holy-Ghoft,  with  a  Preface  to  Charles  the  Great,  written  at  a 
Time  when  the  Difpute  about  the  Proceffon  began  to  make 
Difturbance.  He  brings  feveral  Teftimonies  in  favor  of  the 
Proceflion  from  the  Son,  out  of  Athanafms  -,  and,  among  others, 
a  pretty  large  part  of  the  Athanafian  Creed,  from  the  words. 
The  Father  is  made  of  none  &c.  to.  He  therefore  that  nnll  be  faved 
mufi  thus  think  of  the  Trinity,^  inclufive. 

An  Anonymous  Writer  of  the  fame  Time,  and  in  the  fame 
Caufe,  and  direding  himfelf  to  the  fame  Prince,  makes  the 
fame  ufe  of  the  Athanafan  Creed,  in  the  following  words ; 
"  St.  Atha?mfms,  in .  the  Expofition  of  the  Catholick  Faith,  which 
"That  great  matter  wrote  Himfelf,  and  which  the  Univerfai 

a  Ut  lides  Catltolica  SanBi  Trinitatist  &  Oratio  Dominica,  atque  Symbolnm  TiJei  omni- 
bus praedicetur,  &  tradatur.  Concil.  Francf.  Can.  ^j. 

b  VoflTius  detribus  Symb.  Diflert.  3.  c  j-i.  p.  j-aS. 

c  Irem  idem Pater  a  nulla  efi  facins  &c.  ufque  ad  J^«  vuh  ergo  S^hus  ejfe  &c, 

Theodulph.  apud  Sirmondum.  Oper.  Tora.  a.  p.  978- 

C   z  '^'Church 


809 


lo  ANTIEKT    TESTIMONIES. 

^'  Church  profcflcs,  declares  the  Proceflion  of  the  Holy-Ghoft 
♦'  from  the  Father  and  Son,  thus  faying ;  The  Father  is  mudc 
'■'■  of  rione''  &:c."  This  I  cite  upon  the  credit  oi  Sirmoridus  in  his 
Notes  to  Theodtdphtis. 

Sop  It  was  in  the  fame  year  that  the  Latm  Monies  of  Mount  0- 
Livet  wrote  their  apologetical  Letter  to  Pope  Leo  III,  juflifying 
their  Doctrine  of  the  Procellion/rc;^?/  the  Son,  again  ft  one  John 
of  Jerujdem,  a  Monk  too,  of  another  Monaftcry,  and  of  an  Op- 
pofite  perfwafion.  Among  other  Authorities,  They  appeal 
to  The  F^ith  of  Athnndjius^  that  is,  to  The  Creed,  as  we  now 
call  it.  This  I  have  from  Le  ^ien,  the  learned  Editor  of 
Bamafccn,  who  had  the  Copy  of  that  Letter  from  BaiuziuSj  as 
He  there  fignifies.'' 

820  Not  long  after,  Hatto  otherwlfc  called  Hetto^  and  Ahyto, 
Bilhop  of  B^fil  in  France,  compofed  his  Capitular,  or  Book  of 
ConJlitutionSj  for  the  regulation  of  the  Clergy  of  his  Dioccfs. 
Amongft  other  good  Rules,  This  makes  the  4th ;  "  That  They 
"  fhould  h.ave  the  Faith  of  Athanafim  by  Heart,  and  recite  it  at 
"  the  Vrime  (that  is,  at  7  ^  Clock  in  the  Morning)  every  Lord's  Day  .'^ 

%zo  Agohardus  of  the  fame  Time,  Archbifhop  of  Lyons,  wrote 
againfl:  Felix  Orgelitanus  j  >vhere  He  occafionally  cites  part  of 
the  Athanafian  Creed.  His  words  are:  "St.  Athanafius  fays, 
*'  that  except  a  Man  doth  keep  the  Catholick  Faith  -xvhole  and 
'■^  unde filed y  -without  doubt  He  jhall  perifh  everlaflingly.^ 

^52  In  the  fame  Age,  flourifhed  the  famous  Hincmar,  Arch-Bifhop 
of  Rheims  5  who  fo  often  cites,  or  refers  to  the  Creed  we  arc 
(peaking  of,  as  a  Handing  Rule  of  Faith,  that  it  may  be  need- 

a  Incertus  Autor  quem  diximus,  hoc  ipfo  utcos  teflimonio,  Beatus,  inquit,  jithanafitis, 
in  Expo/itione  Catholics.  Tidei,  quam  ipfe  eirregius  Doftor  confcripfit,  &  quam  univerfalis 
confitctur  Ecclelia,  Proreflloncm  Spirirus  Saiifti  <i  Vatre  ^  Filio  declarat,  ita  dicens :  Pater 
a  nullo  (ft  f actus  &c..     Sirmond.  Op.  Tom.  !■  p.  978-  Conf.  p.  967. 

b  In  Regiila  Sandli  Benediiii  quam  noMs  dcdic  Filius  vcftcr  Dotnntu  Karclus,  qui  ha- 
bct  Fidem  fcriptam  dc  Sanfta  &  infcparabili  Trinitatc;  Credo  Spiritum  SanBum  Deum 
'Ltrum  ex  Patre  procedentem  (^  Filio :  Kt  in  Dialogo  quem  nobis  vcftra  Sanditas  dare 
dignata  eft  flmilitcr  dicir.  Et  in  Fide  S.  Aihanafii  codcm  mode  dicit.  Monacii  dc  Monte 
Oliv.  apud  Le  S^uen  D.flcrt.  Damafc  p.  7. 

c  IVto.  Ut  Fides  Sanrfi  Athanafii  a  Siccrdotibus  difcatur,  8c  ex  corde,  Die  Dominice 
ad  PrimamTC^McXwr.  Bifil.  Capitul.  apud  Ilarduin.  Turn.  IV.  p.   1241. 

d  hci\.\xi  Aihunafius  3i\t ;  Fidem  C2iho]kam'ni/i  qnis  inte^ram,  invioUtamque  fsrvavtriti 
..^i>fqt4t  dubio  in  AtemHtn  peribh.     Agobard.  adv.  Felic.  c  3.  cd.  Baluz. 


ANTIENT    TESTIMONIES.  ai 

lefs  to  produce  the  particular  PalTages.  I  lliall  content  my 
felf  with  one  only,  more  confiderable  than  the  reft  for  the  Ulc 
that  is  to  be  made  of  it  hereafter.  He  direds  his  Presbyters, 
"  to  learn  Ath^nafus's  Treatife  of  Faith  ^beginning  with  whofo-- 
"  ever  -ivill  be  faved)  to  commit  it  to  memory,  to  underftand  its 
"  meaning,  and  to  be  able  to  give  it  in  commo?i  words  j  ^that  is, 
I  fuppofe,  in  the  'vulgar  Tongue,  He  at  the  fame  Time  recom- 
mends the  Lord's  Prayer^  and  {Apoftles)  Creed,  ^as  I  take  it,  with- 
out mentioning  the  Nicefie  :  Which  I  particularly  remark  for 
a  reafon  to  be  feen  above.  It  is  farther  obfervable,  that,  tho' 
Hincmar  here  gives  the  Athanafia^i  Forniulary  the  name  of  a 
Treatife  of  Faith  j  yet  He  elfewhere*^  fcruples  not  to  call  it 
{Symholum)  2.  Creed:  And  He  is,  probably,  as  ^/;';?^o;^^^i  obferves,*^ 
the  firft  Writer  who  gave  it  the  name  it  bears  at  This  Day, 
Which,  I  fuppofe,  may  have  led  Oudifi  into  his  miftake,  that 
no  writer  before  Hincmar  ever  made  mention  of  this  Creed-^  ^  a  mi- 
ftake, which,  tho'  taken  notice  of  by  Tentzelius^  in  the  year 
1687,  He  has  neverthelefs  again  and  again  repeated  in  his  laft 
Edition,  the  Year  before  This.  864 

About  the  fame  Time,  and  in  the  fame  Caufe,  Ratram,  or 
Bertram,  Monk  of  Corbey  in  France,  made  the  like  ufe  of  This 
Creed,  calling  it  A  Treatife  concerning  the  Faith.  ^  ^^5 

In  the  fame  Age,  lived  Anfcharius,  Monk  alfo  of  Corbey ; 
and  afterwards  Arch-Bifhop  of  Hamburgh  and  Breme  in  Ger- 
7nany.  Among  his  dying  Inftrudions  to  his  Clergy,  He  left 
This  for  one  5   that  theyjhould  be  careful   to  recite  The   Ca- 

a  Unufquifque  Presbyterorum  Expofitionem  Symboli,  atque  Omt'wnis  Dominia,  juxta 
Traditionem  Orthodoxorum  Pafrutn  plenius  difcat— -^Pfaimorum  etiam  verba,  8c  Di- 
ftindliones  regulariter,  8c  ex  corde,  cum  Canticis  confuetudinariis  pronunciare  fciaN 
Necnon  8c  Sermonem  Athanafii  de  Fide,  cujus  initium  eft,  £)uicHnqHe  vult  Salvus  efje, 
memorije  quifque  commendet,  fenfum  illius  intelligat,  &  verbis  communibus  enuatiare 
queat.  Hincm.  Capit.  i.Tom.  i.p,  710.  ed.  Sirmond. 

b  Vid,  Hincm.  Opufc.  ad  HiHcmar,  Laudunenfem.  Tom.  2.  p.  475. 

c  Mhanafius  in  Symbolo  dicens  8cc.  de  PrAdeftin.  Tom,  1.  p.  309. 

d  Sirmond.  Not.  in  Theodulph.  p.  978. 

e  Oudin.  Gommentar.  Vol.  1.  p.  54^.    ija-z. 

f   Tentzel.  judic.  Eruditor.  p.   144. 

g  Beatus  ^thanafius  Alexandrinus  Epifcopus,  in  Libello  de  Fide  quern  edidit,  8c  omni- 
bus Catholicis  propofuit  tenendum,  inter  catera  He  ait;  Pater  a  nidlo  efi  fucius,  neccreatus, 
necgenhat  &c.  Ratram  Coiur.  Grsecor.  Oppor.k2.  c  3» 

tholick. 


I'i  ANTIENT    TESTIMONIES. 

tholick  Faith  compofc'.i  by  Ath.znajius.''  This  is  reported  by 
Rer/ihertus,  the  writer  of  his  Life,  and  Succeflbr  to  Him  in  the 
fame  See  5  who  had  been  Hkewife  iMoniv  ot  Corbey  :  fo  that  we 
have  here  Two  confiderablc  Teftimonies  in  one. 

F68  Contemporary  with  Thefe  was  uEnc/is  Bifhopof  Paris,  who, 
in  his  Treatife  againO:  the  Creeks,  quotes  the  Athandjinn  Creed  un- 
der the  name  of  Tides  Catholics,  ^  Catholick  Faith,  producuiL-,  the 
fame  Paragraph  of  it  which  Theodttlphus  had  done  to  years  before. 

?7i  Adelhertus  of  This  Time,  upon  his  nomination  to  a  Cifhop- 
rick  in  the  Province  of  Rherms,  was  obUged  to  give  in  a  Pro- 
fefllon  of  his  Paith  to  Arch-Bilhop  Himmar.  Among  other 
Tilings,  He  profeflcs  his  great  regard  to  the  Ath.mafia7i  Creed 
[Sermo  Athanafii)  as  a  Creed  received  with  great  veneration  by 
the  Catholick  church,  or  being  of  cujlomary  and  venerable  uje 
in  it.*^  This  Teftimony  is  confiderablc  in  regard  to  the  Re- 
ception of  This  Creed ;  and  not  before  taken  notice  of,  fo  far 
as  I  know,  by  Thofe  that  have  treated  of  This  Argument. 

00  This  Creed  is  again  mention'd  in   the    fame  Age  by  Ricul- 

phus  Bifhop  of  Soijjons  in  France^  in  his  paftoral  Charge  to  the 
Cler[:^y  of  iiis  Diocefs.  He  calls  it,  a  Treatife,  (  or  Difcourfe ) 
of  Catholick  Faith.  ^  This  I  take  from  Father  Harduins  Coun- 
cils, as  alio  the  former,  with  the  Dates  of  Both. 

060  Ratherius,  Bifhop  of  Verona  in  Italy  in  the  yeai:  931,  and 
afterwards  of  Leige  in  Germany  in  the  year  95  3,  and  reftor'd  to 
his  See  o'i  Verona  in  the  year  955,  did  after  This  Time  write 
InftruO:ions  to  his  Clergy  of  Verona  j  in  which  He  makes  men- 
tion of  all  the  Three   Creeds,  ApojloUcal,  Nicene ,  and  Athana- 

a  Cum  infarct  obitus,  prarcepit  ut  Fratres  cancrent  Tidtm  Cinholkam  a  Beato  Atha- 
nitfio  comfofitam.  An/char.  Vit.  apud  Pctr.  Lambec.  in  Append.  Lib.  x.  Rerum  Hamburg. 

b  Sinftus  Aihanafiuu  fedis  AlexAndrins  Epifcopus  S<c.  Ifem,  idem  in  FUe  Ca- 

tholica,  quod  5piiitus  Sanftus  a  patre  procedat  &  Filio,  ra.'er  s  nulla  efi  faclut  &c.  iEncas 
Parif.  adv.  Grafc.  c,  19. 

c  In  Sermcne  Bead  Athana/ii,  quern  Ecdcfia  Catholica  vcncrando  ufii  fre^ucntarc  con- 
fuevit.  qui  ita  incipit;  _:^iicunque  vult  Salvus  cjfe,  ante  omnia  opui  efl  ut  teneat  Catholi- 
cHm  Fiilem.  ProfcflTio  Adclberti  Epifcopi  Morinenfis  futuri.  Hjinluin.  Concil.  Tom.  V. 
d.   I44f. 

d  Item""moncmus,  ut  unufquifquc  vcftrum  Pfalmo?,  &  Sermonem  Fidei  Catholic*,  cujus 
initium,  <^uict<ni]ue  vult  falvas  ejfe,  Jc  CaJioncm  Mifl'x,  &  cantum,  vel  compotum,  me- 
moritcr,  iT  vcncitcr,  &  corrcdtc  tencre  ftudcac.  Riculf.  Conft.  Vth.  HardUin.  Concil. 
Tom.  VI.  p.  4>5' 

Jta/z; 


ANTIENT    TESTIMONIES.  zi 

fim-,  obliging  his  Clergy  to  have  them  all  by  Heart:  Which 
ihows  that  they  were  all  of  ftanding  ufe  in  his  Time,  ui  his 
Diocefs,  at  leaft."  ,,  ,^      ^,,       ^^^ 

Near  the  Clofe  of  this  Century  lived  Jth,  or  J/hy  Abbot  997 
of  Fleurvy  or  St.  BenediSi  upon  the  Loire  in  Frmce,  Upon  fome 
Difference  He  had  with  Armlphus  Bilhop  of  Orlems,  He  wrote 
an  Apology  which  He   addrefs'd  to  the  Two  Kings  of  Frmce,. 
Hugh  and  Robert.     In  that  Apology  He  has  a  paflage  relating 
to  our  purpofe,  running  thus.     "1  thought  proper,  in  the  firft 
''place, to  fpeak  concerning  rhe  Faith:  which  1  have  heard va- 
^'rioufly  fung  in   alternate   Choirs,  both  in  Frmce  and  in  the 
"  Church  of  England.     For  fome,  I  think,  fay,  in  the  Athana- 
"  iian  Form,  The  Holy-Ghoft  is  of  the  Father  and  of  the  Son,  net- 
^'ther  made,  nor  created,  but  proceeding  \    Who  while  they  leave 
"  out,  nor  begotten,  are  perfwadcd  that  They  are  the  more  con- 
"formable   to   Gregorys  Synodical  Epijile,  wherein    its   written^ 
'♦  that  the  Holy-Ghofl  is  neither  unbegotten,  nor  begotten^  but  proceed-^ 
«  ing."^     I  have  taken  the  liberty  of  throwing  in  a  word  or  two 
to  make  the  fentence  run  the  clearer.     What  the  Author  in- 
tends, is,    that    fome   fcrupulous  Perfons  both  in    France  and 
England,  recited  the  Athanafian  Creed  with  fome  Alteration, 
leaving  out  two  words,  to  make  it  agree  the  better,  as  They 
imagined,  with  Gregorys   Synodical   Inftrudions.     As  to   their 
Scruple  herein,  and  the  ground  of  it,  I  fhall  fay  more  of  it  in 
a  proper  place.  Ail  I  am  to  obferve  at  prefent  is,  that  this  Te- 
ilimony  is  full  for  the  Cuftom  of  alternate  finging  the  Athana- 
fihi  Creed,  at  this  Time,"  in  the  French  and  Engli^  Churches^ 
And  indeed  we  fhall  meet  with  other  as  full,  and  withal  earlier 

a  Ipfarn  Fidem,  id  eft  Credulitatem,  Dei,  trifarie  parare  memorircr  feftinetis:  Hoc  efts, 
fecundum  Symbolum,  id  eft,  Collatiomm  Apoftolorum,  ficut  in  Plateriis  correftis  invcni- 
tur;  &  illam  quse  ad  Mijfam  caniturj  Sc  ilkm  Sandii  ^ihanafii  qux  ita  incipiti  giuictmquc 

vuh  falvHs  ep —  Sermonem,  ut  fuperius  dixi,  ^thanafii  Epijcopi  de  Fide  Trm.taw, 

cujtis  initium  eft,  ^ticunque  vult,   memoriter  teneat.     Ratherii  Synod.  Epift.  Harduin. , 
Con.  Tom.  Vl.  \>^S7. 

b  Primitus  de  Fide  dicendum  credidij  quam  alternantibtis  Cboris  8c  mFrancta,^  apud 
Anglorum  Ecdefiam  variari  audivi.  Alii  enim  dicunt,  ut  arbitror,  fecundum  Athmafitm, 
Spirit  US  SanHus  a  Patre  &  Filw  non  faHits,  non  creatus,  fed  procedens:  Qui  dun)  id  quod 
eft  wo?j  ^e«;V«/ fubtrahunt,  Synodicum  Domini  Gregorii  fe  lequi  credunt,  ubi  ita  eft  Icri- 
ptum;  Spiritns  Sm^us  nee  ingenttus  efi,  nee  genitus  fed  procedens..  Abbo  Floriaccnl.  ApoL 
adFrancor.  Reges. 


44  ANTIERT    7ESTIM0NIES. 

Evidence  of  the  fame  Cuilom,  when  we  come  to  treat  of  AUyjti^ 
fcripts  in  the  following  Chapters.  To  proceed  with  our  an- 
tient  Tcflimonics. 

1050  ha  the  next  Century,  we  meet  with  Cualdo,  a  Monk  of  Corbcy ; 
who  likewife  wrote  the  Life  of  AnfchMua,  but  in  Vcrje,  as  Rem- 
berttis  had  before  done  in  Vroje.  He  alfo  takes  fomc  notice  of 
our  Creed,  afcribing  it  to  Ath^inajiHS.'' 

1 1 30  li\  the  Century  following,  Ho?wrius,  a  Scholaftick  Divine  of 
the  Church  oi  Autun,  in  his  Book  intituled  The  Pe^irl  of  the 
Soul,  (which  treats  of  the  Sacred,  or  Liturgick  Offices)  reckons 
up  the  feveral  Creeds  of  the  Church,  making  in  all>o«r.-  Name- 
ly, the  Apojlolical,  the  Nlceue,  the  Co?iJl:a?amopolitan,  and  the  A- 
thmafim.  Of  the  laft.  He  obferNcs,  that  it  -was  daily  repeated 
at  the  Prime}"  He  afcribes  it  to  Athmafms  of  Alexandria  in  the 
Time  of  Theodofius :  Where  He  is  undoubtedly  miftaken  in  his 
Chronology.  For,  if  He  means  the  hrll  Athmmfms  of  Alexa?i~ 
driay  He  is  too  early  for  either  of  the  Theodofius' s:  And  if  He 
means  it  of  the  Iccond,  He  is  as  much  too  late.  But  a  Slip  in 
Chronology  might  be  pardonable  in  That  Age:  nor  docs  it  at 
all  affect  the  Truth  of  what  He  attefts  of  his  own  Times. 

1138  Otho,  Bifhop  o'i  Trifmghen  in  Bavaria,  may  here  be  taken 
notice  of,  as  being  the  iirft  we  have  met  with  who  pretends 
to  name  the  Place  where  Athanafius  is  fuppofed  to  have  made 
this  Creed  j  7riers,  or  Treves,  in  Germany."^  I  cite  This  Author 
on  the  credit  oi  Montfoiicon;  who  quotes  from  Him  the  words 
I  have  thrown  into  the  margin. 

J  J  ^  J  Tentzelius  informs  us  of  an  Abbot  of  Brunpivich,  \\'ho  attend- 
ing the  Duke  of  Brunfvick,  at  This  Time,  in  his  journey  into 
the  Eafl,  had  fome  Difputes  with  the  Greeks  there,  upon  the 
Article  of  ProceJJion,  and  pleaded  the  ulual  paflage  out  oi  this 
Creed  5  as  did  alfo  the  T>nke   Himfclf  whole  w  ords  are  to  be 

a  Catholicamque  FiJim  quam  compofuifTe  beams 
Fcrtur  Athanafiut    .         GualJoii.  Vie.  Anfch.apud  Limbec. 

b  Quarto,  Fidem  ^/</f««^//e  T//i//,qiiotiiJic  ad  Vrimam  iccrat,  quam  Athanafius  Alexan- 
drinus  F.pifcopus,  rogntu  Theodcfii  Itnperatoris  cJidit.  Honor.  Atdgujlod.  Gemm.  Animae.  I. 
2.  c.  f.  Bii.1.  PP.  Tom.  XX.  p.  ioS6. 

c  Athanafius  mancns  in  E'cc!clia  Trtvirortim,  fub  Maximo  ejus  Ecclcfix  Epifcopo, 
^Hicunque  zhIi  Scc  a  qujbufdam  dicitur  cdid;He.  Oth.  Friling.  apud  Montfauc.  Diatrib. 

p.     721.  N 

fecn 


ANTIENT    TESTIMONIES,  25 

feen  in  the  Margin.''  What  is  moft  to  be  noted  is  the  Title 
oi  Symbolum  Fidei,  which  now  began  to  be  common  to  this 
Form,  as  to  the  other  Creeds. 

Robertus  PauMus,  Presbyter  of  Amiens,  in  the  Diocefs  oiRheimSj  1 1 7  S 
fpeaking  of  the   Offices  recited  at  the  Frime,  obferves  that  the 
Piety  of  good   Chriftians  had  thereunto  added  the  ^icunqtte 
vult-,  that  the  Articles  necejjkry  to  fahat ion  might  never  be  for^ot- 
'  ten  mij  hour  of  the  Day}" 

Beleth,  a  celebrated  Paris  Divine,  is  the  oldeft  Writer  that  ^^^^ 
takes  notice  of  this  Creed's  being  commonly  afcribed  to  A?mfta~ 
fms  j  tho'  He  Himfelf  afcribes  it  to  Athanafms."^  Te?uzelim^  marks 
fome  Differences  between  the  Prints  and  the  Manufcripts  of  This 
Author,  and  betwixt  one  Manufcript  and  Another.  But  as  the  dif- 
ference, tho' in  ivords  confiderable,  is  yet  very  httle  in  xhcfenfe^  it  is 
not  material  to  our  prefent  purpofe  to  be  more  particular  about  it. 

I  muft  not  Omit  NicoUus  Hydruntinus,  a  Native  of  Otranto  in  1200 
Italy^  who  Tided  with  the  Creeks,  and  wrote  in  Greek,  ai^ainfl  the 
Latins.  He  underftood  Both  Languages,  and  was  often  Mter- 
freter  between  the  Greeks,  and  Latins,  in  their  Difputes  at  G?;^- 
fiantinople,  Athens,  and  Theffalonica.^  He  wrote  feveral  Trads 
out  of  which  Leo  Allatim  has  pubhfh'd  fome  Fragments.  There 
is  one  relating  to  the  Atha?iafian  Creed,  which  muft  here  be 
taken  notice  of  5  being  of  ufe  for  the  certifying  us  that  this 
Creed  was  extant  in  Greek  at  and  before  his  Time.  It  is  This : 
''  They  (the  Greeks)  do  not  know  who  made  the  Addition  to 
'\Xhe  Faith  of  Athmafms^Mlcd  Catholick -,  fmce  the  words,  a-nd 
''  of  the  Son,  are  not  in  the  Greek  {form)  nor  in  the  Creed  (of 
Conftanti?wple.)^ 

a  Unde  Athnnafius  in  Symbolo  Fidei  dixit:  Spiritus  Sanctis  a  Vatre  ©.  liUo  nc» f actus 
im  creatus,  nee  gen'tttis,  fed  proredens.     Henric.  Brunfuic.  apud  Tcnt7el,  p.   89. 

b  His  addidit  Fidclium  devotio,  ^ncunque -vult  falvus  ejfe,  iit  Aniculorum  Fid d  qui 
lunt  necclTarii  ad  Salutem,  ndla  diei  Hora  oblivilcamur,  Rob.  Vauliil.  inter-  Ooer  Hrcon 
de  S.  V,acr.  dc  Offic.  Feci.  I   2.  c.  I.  p.  265.  ■      '     ■      ^ 

r  .^  ^".r'^  ^^  "^^^"''"''^^  Patriarcha  .<4/fx/i?j./nwcompofirum  eft;  plcriqiie  cum  Anad^Cti'm 
fjiUe  falfo  arbitrantur.  Jam.  Bcleth.  de  Divin.  Offic.  c.  40.  ed.  Antvcrp 

d  Tentzcl.  Judicia  Erudit.  p.  91. 

e  Vid.  Fabric.  Bibl.  Grxc.  Vol-  X.  p.  39^ 

?/^  r  V^    TZ""^    T    ^^■'''  ^''"'  '^  ^   '^'^   '■^  '''^'  '"e^%^^«/.    '^r,    c^'-nS  ^,,^^iXco!' Leo 

Aliat.  dc  Conlenl.  Eccl.  Occident.  6;c.  1.  3.  c.  i.  n.  5.  p.  887. 

^  From 


1^  ANTIENT    TESTIMONIES, 

From  This  paffagc  wc  may  learn,  that  there  was  a  Greek 
Copy  of  the  Atha/7/iJiiif7'  Creed  at  this  1  ime  j  that  it  wanted  the 
words,  of  the  Son ;  that  it  v/as  look'd  upon  as  Athanafti.is\  j  and 
that  the  Title  was,  The  CathoUck  Faith  of  St.  Jtha^ytur,  which 
is  its  moil:  ufual  Title  in  the  Lathj^  Copies.  1  miy  jiilt  hint  to  the 
Reader,  that  th.o'  both  z?' 915  in  the  CVecl',  and  f/^'es  in  the  Latm 
might  juftly  be  rendred  Creed  in  Englilh,  rather  rhan  Faith, 
whenever  it  Hands  for  a  Formularj,  or  Confefficn  of  Faitii,  as  it 
does  here  5  yet  becaufe  1  ihould  othcrwife  want  another  F-aalip^ 
word  for  (jh\JLQ,Q\{i^,  in  the  Greek,  and  Sjmbolum  in  the  Latin,  I 
therefore  refcrve  the  word  Creed,  in  this  Cafe,  for  diftindion 
fake,  to  be  the  rendring  of  Symbolum,  or  crJ^CcAcj',  and  nothin^^ 
elfc.     But  to  proceed. 

mo  Alexander  o\  Hales,  in  Glocejierfhire,  may  here  defervc  to  be 
mention'd,  as  fhewing  what  Creeds  were  then  received  in  England, 
He  reckons  up  Three  only  (not  Four^  as  Thofc  that  make  the 
Nicene  and  Co?jfl'antinopolitan  to  be  Two)  namely  5  The  Apoftle's, 
The  Nicene  or  Conftantinopolitan,  and  The  Athanafa.^:^  A\^herc 
we  may  obferve,  that  the  Athanafian  has  the  name  of  a  Creed, 
which  yet  was  not  its  mofi:  ufual,  or  common  Title  in  thofc 
Times :  only  the  Schoolmen;  for  order  and  method  lake,  chofe 
to  throw  it  under  the  Head  of  Creeds. 

I  am  next  to  take  notice  of  the  famed  Legates  of  Pope  Gre- 
qory  the  IXth  {Hajmo,  Radolphus,  Petrus,  and  Hugo)  who  produced 
This  Creed  in  their  Conferences  with  the  Greeks,  at  Conflarni- 
nople.  They  afierted  it  to  be  Athanafius's,  and  made  by  Him 
while  an  Exile  in  the  Weftcrn  Parts,  and  penn'd  in  the  Latin 
Tongue.  They  had  not  aflurance  enough,  it  feems,  to  pretend 
that  it  was  a  Greek  Compofition :  There  were  too  many,  and 
too  plain  reafons  to  the  contrary. 

12J.0  ^^  This  Age,  Walter  de  Caniilttpe,  Eifhop  oi  JVorcefler,  in  his 
Synodical  Conflitutions,  exhorts  his  Clergy  to  make  themfelves 
competent  Madcrs  of  the  Pfahn  called  J^^ictmque  -cult,  and  of, 

a  Tria  funt  Symbol!:  primuni  Apojlo'.orum,  fccundum  patrum  Niro2:rtim,  quod  cani- 
tur  in  Mf//i,1ertium  jithanafii.  Alcxand.  Alcnf  Par.  9    Q   69.  membr.  f, 

Greg.  IX,  Harduiii,  Tom.  VU.  p.  IJ7. 

^  the 


-3  3 


AKTIEKT    TESTIMONIES.  t^ 

the  greater  and  fmaller  Creed  (that  is  Nkene,  and  Apoftolicd)  that 
They  might  be  able  to  inftrnd  their  people.*  From  whence 
we  may  obferve,  that  at  This  Time  the  Athanftfmn  Formuiary 
was  diltinguilh'd,  here  amongft  us,  from  the  Creeds  properly  fo 
called  j  being  named  a  Pfalm^  and  fometimes  a  Hyr^n  (as  we 
fhall  fee  from  other  Evidences  to  be  produced  hereafter)  fuita- 
bly  to  the  Place  it  held  in  the  P falters  among  the  other  Hymns y 
Ppilms,  and  Canticles  of  the  Church,  being  alfo  fung^  alternate- 
ly in  Churches,  like  the  other. 

We  may  here  alfo  take  notice  of  a  juft  Remark  made  by  1250 
Thomas  Aquinas  of  This  Century  5  that  Athanafms,  whom  He 
fuppofes  the  Author  of  This  Formulary,  did  not  draw  it  up  in 
the  way  of  a  Creeds  but  in  a  Voclritial  Form  ;  which  however 
was  admitted  by  the  Authority  of  the  Roman  See,  as  contain- 
ing a  compleat  Syftem  of  Chriftian  Faith.'^ 

In  a  Synod  of  iB'Ar^/^r,  in  this  Century  alfo,  we  have  mention  1287 
again  made  of  the  Athanafian  Creeds  but  under  the  Name  of  a 
Pfalm,  and  as  fuch  diftinguifh'd  from  the  Two  Creeds^  properly 
fo  called. 

William  DurantSj  the  elder,  Biiliop   of  Menda  in  France y  re-  1287 
counting  the  Creeds^  makes  their  Number  T^r^^  5  mentioning  the 
Athanafian  in  the  fecond  place,  between  the  Apofiles  and  Nicene. 
He  follows  the  fame  Tradition  which   Otho   Frifmgenfis  did  be- 

a  Habeat  etism  faltem  quilibet  eoruni  fimplicem  intelledum  fecundum  quod  continetur 
in  Tfalmo  qui  dicilur  ^uicunque  vuh,  &  tam  in  majeri  quam  in  mtnori  Symbolo,  ut  in  his 
plebem  fibi  commiflam  noverint  in(oraiare.  Walter.  Wtgorn.  Conft.  apuu  Harduin.  Tom. 
Vh.  p.  357. 

b  \n  John  WickUff's  Comment  on  this  Creed,  I  find  the  following  words: 

It  is  feid  comunly  that  ther  ben  thre  credis:  the  fir  ft  is  of  Apoftlts,  that  Men  hiowen  comun' 
ly:  the  tothir  is  the  Crede  of  theChirche,that  declarith  the  former  Crede:  This  thriddeCrede 
is  of  the  Trynyte,  the  which  is  Sungum  as  a  Salm,  and  was  tnaad  in  Greke  Speche,  of  oon 
that  is  cleptd  Attanafie,  and  afiir  tumid  to  Latyn,  and  Sum  del  ammdid,  and  ordeynid  to  be 
feid  at  thefirfi  our.  Wickl.  Ml!  Bibl.  Coll.  Johan.  Cant. 

c  ^thanafius  non  compofuit  manifeflationein  Fidei  per  modum  SymboH,  fed  magis  per 
trodum  cuju/dam  Doftrinae:  fed  quia  integram  Fidei  veritateni  ejus  Dot^rina  breviter 
continebat,  auftorirate  fummi  Pontificis  eft  recepta,  ut  quafi  Fidei  Rcgti'a  Libeatur.  Thorn. 
Aqu.  Secund.  SecundaeQu.  I  •  Art.  lo.  n.  5. 

d  Articulorum  Fidei  Chriftianorum  Salrem  fimplicem  habeant  intd'efrum,  prout  m 
Tfalmo,  ^icunque  vult,  8c  in  titroque  Symbolo  continentur.  Synod.  Exon.  Harduin  Concil* 
Tom.  VII.  p.  1096.  ^  ^ 

D  2  fore 


z8  AKTIEKT    TESTIMONIES, 

fore,  that  This  Creed  was  made  atT^-zm,  or  Treves."  It  is  fcnrce 
worth  notins;  that  fome  Copies  here  read  jin^J};ifras,  iincc 
the  Circumllances  plainly  (how  that  Athnn^fitis  is  the  Man  in- 
tended, and  that  An;ijlafim  can  be  nothing  elfe  but  a  corrupt 

reading. 
j,,o       Ludolphtis  Saxo,  the  Carthufian,  is  cited    by   Vojfms,  as  nuni- 
^        brmi:;  Three  Creeds,  with  very  brief,  but  good  Hints  of  their 
Ufcs  refpedively  :  The  Apofiies^  ufeful  for  a  Ihorr  compendious 
Infnuciion  in  the  Faitli  j  The  Nicene  for  fuller  Explication  5  and 
the  Athnnafmn,  for  Guard,  or  Defence''  againft  Herefies. 
1337       V/illmm  of  Bddenfd,  or  Boldejkle,  a  German  Knight,  ought 
here  to  be  mention'd  5  as    being   the  firft  Writer  extant  that 
aferibes  the  Creed  to  Eufebius  (of  Verceil^  in  Piedmont)    along 
with  Athm^fius.     The  reafon,    I  prefume,  was,  the   better  to 
account  for  the  Creed's  being  originally  Latin.  Baldenfd's  Tre^- 
tife    beino-  the  Hifiory  of  Viedmont,  wherein  He   makes  the  re- 
mark, is  not  yet  publiih'd,  I   iuppoie  :  But   Cardinal   Bona  in- 
forms us  that  die  Manufcript  was,  in  his  Time,  in  the  Library 
of  the  Buke  of  Savoy  at  Turin.  ^ 
I    60       Manuel  Caleca,  a  latinizing  Creek,  wrote  a  Treatife  upon  the 
Principles  of  the  Catholick  Faith,  publilh'd  by  Combe fis,  in  his  new 
Auciarium  to  the  Bibliotheca  Patrum,  Tome  the  2d.  where  we 
find  fome  Paflages  to  our   prefent  purpofe  5  particularly  This, 
that  Caleca  aferibes  the  Creed  to  Athanafius,  and  fuppofes  it  to 
have  been  prefented  by  Him  to  Pope   Julius.^     I    know   not 

a  Nota,  quod  triplex  cfl  Symbolum.     Primum    ert   Symboliim  ^fojlclorutn,  quod  vo- 

catur  Symbolum  minus. ^ Secundum  Symbolum  t^,  ^ucun^uevnlt  falvm  ejfe  &c. 

ab  Athanafto,   Patriarcha  Alexandrino,  in  civjtatc  Trevm  compolitum  Tertium 

eft  Niannm  quod -vocatur  Symbolum  m^^j us.  Gul.    Durant.  Rational.  Divin.  Offic. 

lib.    IV.    C.    2f.  ,.,-;,. 

b  Tria  furn  Symbola:  primum  Apcfljlorum,  fecundum  Nianutn,  tertium  Atbanafit. 
Primum  facf^um  eft  ad  Fi-^ei  JnjlruBionem,  f-cundum  ad  F:dci  Explananonem,  tertium  ad 
¥\(\ci  Defenficnem.  Ludr.lpli.  Sax-  dc  Vit.  Chrifti.  cap.  Sj-  apud  roj^mm  dc  Trib  Symb. 
DilTcrt.   I.  cap.  i.p.  j-oj..  ■      r     •  .         j 

c  In  hoc  autcm  Symbolo,  five  componendo.  five  c  Grico  in  Latinum  traduccndo. 
Adjutorcm  fjilTe  Athanafto  Eufeiium,  Vercellenfem  Ep'fcopum,  rcfcrt  GuUelmus  BMefanus 
in  Hi.loria  \edemontana,  quse  Manufcripta  T^wr/w/ afTcrvatur  in  Bibliotheca  Ducis  S^bau- 
^it,  ex  Tabulario  Vercellenfis  Rccleliar.    Bona  de  Diyin.  Pfalm.^  c.   i6.  Scd-  i8-  p.  864. 

d   T<«e;'77)»  ^Ptxv    itjii  71?    Tnv^;    9nrit/'r>i,  c^}v''«/   i  iiiti.TU^.,    is   0    fA^iyx^    *A}«»««a;  it    -jj 

«7*j'5  'la>T«  -TrnTizf.)!  'Vuujnc,  rr,  -Trlfiw?  ou,oAo^'ac  cr^ffj>>cir.   MaRucl.  Calcc.  de   Fid.  C.  10. 
'>nrer  h^tnd.  Contr.  Grxc  1.  a.  c.  2o.     '  , 

^  whctlier 


ANTIENT    TESTIMONIES.  i^ 

whether  He  be  not  the  firft  writer  that  mentions  That  Circimv 
fiance,  nor  whether  He  reports  it  from  others,  or  from  his 
own  invention.  ; 

About  the  fame  Time  Johannes  Cyparijjiota,  Surnamed  the  1360 
Wife  J  wrote  his  Bee  ads,  which  are  publilh'd  in  Lut'm,  in  the 
BibliothequeSj  of  Turrianuss  Verfion.  What  we  are  to  obfervc 
from  Him  is,  that  He  cites  This  Creed  in  the  Name  of  AthyT>- 
rmfmSj  and  as  if  it  were  made  at  the  Council  of  Nice.^  It 
feems,  after  it  once  pafs'd  current  that  Athanafms  was  the 
Author,  there  was  great  variety  of  Conjedures  about  the  Place 
where,  and  the  Time  when,  He  compofed,  or  prelented  this 
Greed. 

I  fhall  mention  but  one  more,  as  late  as  the  Council  of  ^43 9 
Florence-,  or  a  little  later ;  and  That  is  Johannes  (afterwards  Jo- 
fephus)  Plujiadenus,  a  latinizing  Greek,  who  wrote  a  Dialogue  in 
defence  of  the  Latins.  What  is  obfervable  in  Him  is,  that 
He  makes  the  Creed  to  have  been  prelented  by  Athatzafius  to 
Pope  Liberim,  inftead  of  Julm^. 

I  have  now  come  low  enough  with  the  Antient  Tc^imon'tcSf 
if  I  may  be  allowed  fo  to  call  thofe  of  the  later  Times.  A  few 
of  the  hrft  and  eailicft  might  have  fufficed,  had  I  no  other  Point 
in  view  but  the  meer  Antiquity  of  the  Creed  :  But,  as  my  Defign 
is  to  treat  of  its  Reception  alfo,  in  various  Places,  and  at  vari- 
ous Times,  and  to  lay  together  feveral  kind  of  Evidences  which  -. 
will  require  others,  both  early  and  late,  to  clear  up  and  explain  • 
Them ;  it  was,  in  a  manner,  necefl'ary  for  me  to  bring  my  Ac^ 
founts  as  low  as  I  havejiere  done.  Befldes  that  feveral  infe- 
rior, incidental  Qj-ieftions  will  fall  in  our  way,  for  the  refolv- 
ing  of  which,  moft  of  the  Teftimonies  I  have  here  cited  will  be 
ferviceable  in  their  Turn  5  as  will  appear  more  fully  in  the  Se- 
quel. I  have  omitted  feveral  Teftimonies  of  the  later  Centu- 
ries, fuch  as  I  thoui^ht  might  conveniently  be  fpared,  either  as 
containing  nothing  -but  v/hat  we  had  before  from  others  more , 

a  Magnus  Athannfius,  in   Expofitione  Fidei,  in  primn  Synodo,    ait    (^c.   Joan.    CypariiT- 
Decad.  9.  c.  3.  Bibl.  PP.  Tom  XXi. 

t5  'tiS  oc.  Joan.  Plu.riad.  apud  Conibtiif,  no'»  in  Calec.  p.  297, 

ajitienj: 


JO  ANTIENT    TESTIMONIES. 

antient,  or  as  being  of  no  ufe  for  the  clearing  up  any  that  \vc 
have,  or  for  the  fettling  any  Point  which  will  come  to  be 
difcLifb'd  in  the  following  Sheets.  The  Rule  I  have  fct  my  fcif 
in  making  the  Colledion,  and  which  I  have  been  moft  cartful  to 
obfcrve,  was  to  take  in  all  thofe,  and  none  but  thofc  which  are 
either  valuable  for  their  AfUiquitj^  or  fomething;^^^/^,  z.\\\ p/irtict4,Ur 
upon  the  Subjecl,  or  may  (h-ikc  fomc  Light  into  any  doubtful 
^efiion  thereunto  relating. 

I  (hall  fhut  up  this  Chapter,  as  I  did  the  former,  with  'xTMe^ 
rcprefenting  in  one  view  the  Sum  and  Subftance  of  what  has 
been  done  in  it.  The  feveral  Columns  will  contain  the  Te^ir 
of  our  Lord^  the  Authors  here  recited,  the  Country  where  They 
lived,  and  the  Title,  or  TitUi  by  Them  given  to  the  Creed. 
The  Titles  oui^ht  to  appear  in  their  Origind  Language  wherein 
they  were  written  ;  which  my  EngUpo  Reader  may  the  more  eafi- 
ly  cxcufc,  fincc  they  have  moft  of  them  been  given  in  Englijh 
above,  where  it  was  more  proper  to  do  it.  The  ufe  of  fuch  a 
Tabid  will  be  fccn  as  often  as  a  Reader  has  a  mind  to  look 
back' to  This  Chapter,  or  to  compare  feveral  Evidences  of  dif- 
ferent kinds,  proving  the  lame  Thing,  one  with  Another. 


A  Tabic 


A  Table  of  the  ARTIE  RT  TESTIMORIES.         31 


A.D. 

1           Authors 

J      Country 

1                       Title  of  the  Creed. 

670 

1     Council  oi  Autun 

[     France 

1     Fides  Sandti  Athanafii  Prafulis. 

760 

1    Arcicies  i\^\^i, Kegmj 

1      G^fiiiany 

(     Sermo  Athanalii   Epikopi  do  Ftde. 

794 

1     C.'ounc;  Franckfort 

Germany 
France 

1     Fides  Catholica  Sandtx  Trinitaris. 

S09 

1      Theodulphus 

809 

J      ^rionymns 

France 

Expofirio  Catholics  Fidci,    Arhanafii. 

809 

(    Monks  of  M.  O/x;?/ 

judea 

Fides  SandVi    -Uhatiafii. 

820 

I      H^tto.  or  tiitto. 

France 

F;des  San-Tri  Athanilii 

8io 

j      AgobArdns 

France 

8/* 

1     Hincmar 

France 

Sermo  Aihinafji  de  Fide 
Athanafii  Symbolum. 

864 

1      Bertram 

France 

1      Libeilus  Athanalii  de  Fide. 

86f 

1      Anfcharins 

Gern-aKy 

(     Athanalii  Fides  Catholica. 

868 

1       4i  /p,-?j    I'arif, 

Ffocr 

j       Arhin   hi   F.de;  Cathoiica. 

87' 

1      AUelbei-tui 

France 

Sermo   Beati  Athanafii. 

889 

1      RirtAph'-n 

Franre 

j      Sern^o  Fidei  CatholiCie, 

960 

1'     Rarheruis 

Faly 

Sermo  Athanali  hpT  de  Fide  Trinitatis. 

991 

1      ^(^(^o,  <;>•  ^;'/5j            [ 

France 

Fides  lecundum   Athanafium. 

lOfO 

G«  1/(^/0                         1 

Frorce          | 

F:des  Catholica  Athmafio  adfcripra. 

1 130 

Honcr'niS                        | 

France         j 

Fides  j^ictncjtie  zult. 

,     11;^ 

1      O'^" 

Biv.nria        j 

Qiiicun jue  vulr.  c'/r- 

1171 

1    n  k,- of  B-//;2/w,  it 

1      Rnherttn  Paululm      1 

G?rmiiiv 

Athmalii  SyinholjiTi    Fidei. 

11-8 

France          | 

Qi.lirun:V'.'    ^'l-llt.    ?'°rc- 

1 190 

£■■/''//;                            1 

Frin  e          1 

^;hanilii  Symb'i'um. 

IZOC^ 

N;c.  HjJrimunitj       j 
Alexander   Alenf.      | 

lraij>-          j 

T»    a,yi>i   ' Ajzivcixiii  m^i  ti   Ka^aAx.;, 

1230 

Ath:n,ifii  Symbolum. 

iin 

1   P.  Gregoiyh  Legates   [ 
Mealier  Cp.ntilupe       1 

RnglinJ       1 

''Etjani     TYii    THTitilC,, 

1  liO 

Pfalmus  ^u'.cunjiue   zyc- 

llfO 

1     Ihom-  Asjuin^s 

Italy            1 

Athaiiaiii   Man  f_'lia'io  Fidei 

1187 

[     Exori.  Synod             j 

•Enjhnd       1 

Plalnius  J^uic:incfue  fie 

1287 

1      Dur.i}itus                     I 

France          | 

Aihinani   Symbolum. 

1530 

j      Luddphui                    j 

Sivonv        1 

Afhamli   Symbolum. 

«?B^ 

1      Baldsn-^.jl.                     1 

CjT'mt^v     1 

Atb.maii    *^vnib:)lum. 

1560 

1      Ai.i.'j.    Caleca               j 

Giecre          j 
Greece 

'H  ri?  Trhiu'^  of/^hoyMT-s   'AScy/ttAa. 

w6o 

1      7^;j«.   Cyt>^'-ijj!  !a     j 

A'.hanafii    Fxpofirio   Fidei. 

'439 

j      yo^«.   Tl'.JUder.y.s      j 

Greece        j 

H   T,.<i  7n?-iv^  t;4<^A'.p<»  75W  'A/wy^j-.V. 

CHAP. 


3* 

CHAP.     III. 

Ancient  Commentators    ait\d    Taraphrafts  upon  the    j^tJoa- 

najian  Creed. 

AN  T  1  E  N  T    Comments,    or  ParaphrafcSy    may    be   properly 
mention'd  after    aiitient  TcftimonieSj  being  near    akin  to 
Them,  and  ahiioft  the  fame  Thing  with  Them.     I    call    none 
dntieut  but  fuch  as  were  made    before   Printing  5  and  therefore 
Ihall  carry  my  Accounts  no  lower  than  that  Time. 
A      F)       The  firft  Comment  to  be  met  with   on  this  Creed,  is  one  of 
'^-Qthc  Sixth  Century,  compofed  by  Vcnantius  FortimntuSy    an  Itd- 
limi  by  Birth,  but  one  that  travelled  into  Prance  and  Germanyy 
became  acquainted  with  the   moft    eminent  Scholars  and   Pre- 
lates all  over  the   Weft,    and  was   at   length   made   Bifhop  of 
Pcictiers  in  Prance.  His  Comment  on  this  Creed  has  been  pub- 
lifh'd  from  a  Manufcript   about    600    years   old,  =^    out    of  the 
Ambrofmn  Library  at  MiU?z,  by  Muratorius  in  his  Second  Tome 
o^  A?iecdota  in  the   year.   1698.     There  can  be  no  reafonable 
doubt  but  that  the  Comment  really  belongs  to  the  Man  whole 
Name  it  bears,      i.  Becaufe  in  the  fame  Book  there  is  alio  a 
Comment  upon   the   Apofiles  Creed '^  afcribed    to    Portunatus, 
and  which  is    known    to    belong  to    Fenantim  Portunatus,  and 
has  been  before  printed  among  his  other  Works.     2.  Becaufe 
it  appears  highly  probable  from  what  T'encmtius   Portwidtus  has 

a  Eft  rorro  nobis  in  Ambrofmna.  Bibliotheca  Membransceus  Codex  nnnos  abhinc  fermc 
fexrentos  manii  defcriptus;  nt  ex  Charaftcrum  Forma,  aliiiljue  Con^^cfturis  affirmaripone 
mihividctur.  Hcic.  prxrer  alia  opulcuh  nmlta,  Trcs  Symbol!  expolitioncs  habcntur,  qua- 
rum  unam  tantum  nunc  public!  juris  facio. 

Prima  ira  infcribitur,  Expc/iiio  Fuiei  Cmtholici.     Akcri  nullus  Titulus  prxfixus  eft.    P*- 

firtma  vcro  hunc  prae  fc  fcrt  ■■,  Expo/itio  Fuiei  Caiholic*  F.rtun.ui.. ■~Tortunatus  autem, 

hfic  memoratus, alius  a-Venantio  Fortnn.%to  non  eft,  quern  Infah  Vulaitenfis  lLCclc(la:,qucm 
Chriftiinz  pocciccs  ornamcnta  xternitarc  donirunr.  Murator.  Anecdot.  Tom.  2.  p.  228. 

b  Expofitionem  quoquc  continct  {Cod.  ^;n6roJianus)  Apoftolici  Symboli,  cum  hac  In- 
fcriprionc:  Incipii  expofitio  a  Foriunato  Vreslytero  confcnpta.  Eadcm  vero  eft  ac  Edita inter 
FortHnatiOocYi-  Tuni  fcquuntur  ^'cniinx  cjuldcm  Symboli  cxplicationes,  Tres  Qrationis 
Bominicd,  &  dux  ^^//'^W'^y*^';' i>w^o/»  cxpojitioncs  incertis  audoribus  fcriptl.  Tandem,  uti 
diximus,  Exp^fuio  Fidei  Gntholia.  Fortunati  Icgitur.  Quocirco  quin  ad  Veniuiimm  quoquc 
SertunatHm  Opufculum  hoc  lit  referendum,  nullus  dubito.     MJir/itor.  ibid,  p.  131. 

occa- 


AKTIERT  COMMENTS  &c.  55 

occ^fionally  dropp'd  in  his  other  undoubted  Works/  that  Ho 
was  really  acquainted  with  the  Athmafim  Creed,  and  bor- 
rowed Exprcllions  from  it.  3.  Becaufe  in  the  Expolitions  of 
the  ApojHes  and  Athf^najiiiii  Creeds,  there  is  great  fimilitude 
of  Style,  Thoughts,  and  Exprcillons  5  which  Ihows  that 
Both  are  of  the  fajic  Hand,  and  indeed,  the  other  Circum- 
ftances  confider'd,  abundantly  proves  it.  It  would  burden  my 
Margin  too  much,  otherwiie  it  were  eafy  to  give  at  lead  half 
a  dozen  plain  Specimens,  where  either  the  Expreflions,  or 
Turn  of  Thought,  or  Both  are  exadly  parallel.  Such  as  think 
it  of  moment  to  examine,  may  eafily  be  fatisfied  by  comparini^'" 
the  Comment  on  the  Apofles  Creed,  in  the  Xth  Tome  of  the 
laft  BibliothequCj  with  the  Comment  on  the  Athi^riafia?i,  in  Mti- 
ratorius.  4.  I  may  add,  that  the  Tenour  of  the  whole  Com- 
ment, and  the  fimplicity  of  the  Style,  and  Thoughts,  are  very  fuit- 
able  to  That  Age,  and  more  fo  than  to  the  Centuries  follow- 
ing. Thefe  reafons  intirely  convince  me  that  this  Comment 
belongs  to  Venfmtius  FortunatuSj  compofed  by  Him  after  his  going 
into  France  J  and  before  He  wasBilhop  o^  PoicHers :  And  lb  we 
may  probably  fix  the  Date  of  it  about  the  year  570,  or  perhaps 
higher.  There  is  an  older  Manufcript  Copy  of  this  Comment 
C  as  I  find  by  comparing )  in  the  Mufmrn  at  Oxford,  among 
Junius s,  Manufcripts,  Number  25.''  J.  am  obliged  to  the  very 
worthy  and  learned  Dr.  Haywoody  for  fending  me  a  Tranfcript 
of  it,  with  a  Specimen  of  the  Chara^er.  It  is  reafonably  judged 
to  be  above  700  years  oid.  It  wants,  in  the  Beginning,  about 
ten  or  a  dozen  Lines :  In  the  other  parts  it  agrees  with  Murato- 

a  Pr^Eclanim  in  primordio  ponitur  Cafleftis  Teftimonii  Fundamentum,  qifia  Salvns 
ejfe  non  potent,  qui  rcfte  dc  Salute  non  crcdiderit:  Fortunat.  Expof,  Symb,  A^cfi,  Bib". .PP. 
Tom.  X. 

Non  Deus  hi  Carnem  verfus,  Deus  accipit  Artus : 

Non  fe  pcrroutans,  fed  fibi  membra  Icvans. 
Unus  in  an.babus  naturis,'  verus  in  ipfis 
jEqualis  fnatri  hinc,  par  Diitctte  Patri. 
Non  fua  confundens,  fibi  noftra  fed  omnia  ne(flens. 

De  patre  natus  habens  divina,  htimanaque  matris, 
De  patre  fublimis,  de  genetrice  humilis. 

Venant.  Fortun.  1.  8.  Carm.  j--  Bihl.  P.  Tom.  X. 
b  The  Title,  Expnfttio  in  Fide  Catholica. 

E  riuss 


34  ANTIENT    COMMENTS  ufon 

r/V/i's  Copy,  faxing  only  luch  Various  Leftions  as  are  to  be  ex- 
pcclcd  in  different  Manufcripts  not  copied  from  each  other, 
from  the  tvo  Copies  compared  may  be  drawn  out  a  much  more 
coYvcii  Cor?irr2€?}t  than  That  which  Muratorim  has  given  us  from 
Ofje  :  As  perhaps  I  may  ihcw  at  the  end  of  1  his  \A^ork.  The 
Reader  will  cxcnfe  my  dwelling  fo  long  upon  this  truly  eintient 
Comment ,  which  bears  fo  confidcrable  Tedimony  to  the 
Aiiti^uity,  early  Reception^  and  \i\'^  Value  of  our  Creed  j  as  will 
appear  more  fully  in  the  Sequel. 

I  intimated  above,  that  Muratorim  fuppofes  This  Vetjantius  For- 
tunatiis  to  be  the  Author,  not  of  the  Comment  only,  but  Creed 
alfo.  But  his  Reafons  which  plead  flrongly  for  the  former,  are 
of  no  Force  at  all  in  refped  of  the  latter :  which  He  is  lb  icw- 
fible  of  Himfelf,  that  while  He  fpeaks  with  great  Aflurancc  of 
the  one.  He  is  very  diffident  of  the  other/  And  indeed,  not  to 
mention  fcveral  other  confiderations  (landing  in  the  way  of  his 
conjedurc,  who  can  imagine  Ve?iantius  Fortunatus  to  have  been' 
fo  vairi-j  as,  after  commenting  on  the  Lord\  Prayer,  and  Apofiles 
Creed,  to  fall  to  commenting  upon  a  Compofition  of  his  own  ? 

This  Comment  of  Forttmatus  is  a  great  Confirmation  of 
what  hath  been  above  cited  from  the  Council  of  Autun :  For, 
if  the  Creed  was  noted  enough  to  defcrvc  a  Comme-at  upon  it, 
fo  early  as  the  year  570,  no  wonder  if  we  find  it  ft'rongly  re- 
commended by  That  Council  in  the  year  670,  a  hundred  years 
after.  And  it  is  obfervable  that  as  That  Council  recommends 
tiie  Apoftolical  and  Athanafmn  Creeds,  without  laying  a  Word 
of  the  Nicene ;  fo  Fortundtus,  before  Them,  comments  upon 
Thofe  Two  only,  taking  no  notice  of  the  Third. 

I  cannot  take  leave  of  This  Comment,  without  obferving 
to  the  Reader,  that  in  Vareuss  Notes  on  This  Creed,  I  Jiavc 
met  with  a  Paflagc  which  I  am  not  well  able  to  account  for. 
He  cites  a  Comment  upon  this  Creed,  under  the  name  of  Fu- 
phronius  Presbyter,^    does   not   fay    whether  from    a   Print,  or  a 

a  Wa]\i&  Symboli  Aiiftor  cfTc  potuit  Vchvuiut  Fortunatas :  Saltern  fuii  Ijujus  Expofnit- 
an   AjiitoT.^furalor.  p.   117. 

Non  ita  mcis  conjcdluris  plauJo,  ut  ficilius  non  arbitrcr  Extinfuiorum  potius  quam 
jyt/U>oluM  huic  AuAori  tribuendum.     /</.  p.  1^1, 

b  £«;//ro7y;/<;  Preibytcr  in  expofitionc  Jiujus  Syn.boli  Atbanafii,^f;Vf/,  inquit,  Catholicity 

Ma?iU' 


The   ATHANASIAK    CREED.  35 

Manufcript'.  But  the  words  He  produces  are  in  this  very  Com- 
ment of  i^or///;^/^/^^.  Who  this  Euphromus  is,  1  can  no  where 
find  5  nor  whether  an  mtient,  or  modem  Writer.  There  was 
an  Euphronms  Presbyter  (mention'd  by  Greg,  of  Tours)  who  lived 
in  the  5th  Century,  and  was  at  length  Billiop  of  Autun:  But  I 
never  heard  of  any  writings  of  his,  more  than  an  EpiJHe  afcribed 
to  Him  and  Lupus  of  Troyes,  I  would  not  however  omit  the 
mentioning  this  Note  of  Parens,  becaufe  a  Hint  may  fome- 
times  lead'^to  ufefui  Difcoveriesj  And  others  may  be  able  to 
refolve  the  Doubt,  tho'  I  am  not. 

Our  next  Commentator,  or  rather  Paraphrafi,  is  Hincmur  of  852 
Kheims:  Not  upon  the  whole  Creed,  but  upon  fuch  parts  only 
as  He  had  occallon  to  cite.  For,  his  way  is  to  throw  in  fe- 
veral  words  of  his  own,  as  Explanatory  Notes,  lo  far  as  He 
quotes  the  Creed  :^  And  He  fometimes  does  it  more  than  He 
ought  to  have  done,  to  ferve  a  Caufe  againft  Gothefcdcm: 
Which  I  may  hint,  in  pafling  ;  to  fay  more  of  it,  would  be 
foreign  to  our  prefent  purpofe. 

S.  Bruno,  Biiliop  of  Wurtzburgh  in  Germany,  has  a  formal  1033 
Comment,'and  much  larger  ih2in  Fortunatuss,  upon  the  Athana- 
Ctm  Creed.  It  is  at  the  end  of  his  Pf alter,  and  has  been  feveral 
Times  printed  with  it.  Father  Le  Long  reckons  up  fix  Edi^ 
tions^  in  This  order:  i,  At  Nuremberg  in  Eolio,  An.  D.  1494. 
2.  By  Antonius  Koburger  in  4to,  A.  D.  1497-  3.  By  Cochleus 
at  Wurtzburgh.  in  4to.  A.  D.  1531-  4^%  At  Leipfick,  in 
4to,  1533. '5/^/7  In  the  Cologne  Bibliotheque  A.  D.  161  3.  Tom. 
m!  6thly  in  the  Lyons  <2>ih\.  PP.  A.  D.  1677.  Tom.  XVIII. 
The  OU  Editions  are  icarce,  and  not  eafy  to  be  met  with.  I 
have  feen  Two  of  them  in  our  Publick  Library  at  Cam- 
bridge, Thofe  of  1494,  and  1533.  There  is  an  elegant  one 
of  the  former  ( as  I  conceive  by  the  defcription  fent  me  by   a 

feu  miverfahs,  dicitur:  Hoc  efl,  recla,  quam  Ecckfia  Univerfa,  temre  debet,     David.  Parei 
nor.  ad  Symb.  Athan.  p.  i  «8. 

a  Vid.  Hincmari  Oper.  Tom.  l.  p.  4f»-  4^4-  4^9*  9S^-  Sfl'      ^  ■    t     ^  '    vr. 

b  Commentarii  in  totum  Pfalteriam  Sc  in  Cantica  Vet.  &  N.  Teftamenti.  l"  ^O'"  Jf" 
rmbergsi.  ,494.  In  4to  per  Antonium  Koburger  1497.  Idem  zJoan.Coc^^Aeo  rcft.mtumm 
4to  HerbipoU  1531.  Li^ftA.  1^33.  Bibl.  PP.  Colonienfis  &  Lugdunenhs.  Le  Long.  liiw. 
B.bK  Tom.  ^,  p.  6,4.  ^    ^  ^^^^^^^ 


x6  ANTIENT  COMMENTS  npon 

learned  Gcntlcmanj  in  the  Bodleian,  at  Oxford.     It  is  in  Vellttmy 
in  a  black,  and  red  Letter,  relervcd  among  the  Manufcripts,  and 
mark'd  X/^W  E.  8  i.Tiie  Two  Editions  of  149  7>  and  1531,  1  never 
faw  :  yet  Biihop  V^^er  makes  mention  of  an  Edition  in   1531,* 
and  feems  to  iiave  known  of  none  older.    1  (hould  have  fufpe- 
(fled  15  3 1  to  be  a  falfe  print  f)r  1533,  had  not  Le  Long  con- 
firmed it  that  there  is  Inch  an  Edition  as  1531,  and  named  the 
?Uce  where  it  was  prmted  :  Iho'  I  cannot  but  obicrve  that  He 
makes  a  I^olio  of  it   in    his  hrft   Tome,*'  and  a  J^arto  in   the 
fecond ;  which  is  to  me  an  argument  that  He  had  never  feen  it, 
but  perhaps  took  the  Hint  from  Upoer.  Dr.  Crahe,  tho'  dcfirous 
of  it,  had  never  feen  either  That  of  15  31,  or  That  of  1533.'- 
But  leaving  the  printed  Editions   of  This   Comment   of  Bruno's^ 
let  us  next  fay  fomething  of  the   Aianujcripts  of  it,  and  their 
Differences  from  the  Prints,  or   from    each   other.     There  are 
many  Manufcript  Copies,  which  I  fhall  mention  in  order, 

I.  The  tirft  and  moil:  valuable  Manufcript  is  in  the  Li- 
brary of  Wiirtzhtirghj  as  old  as  the  Author,  left  by  Him  as  a  Le- 
gacy to  That  Church.  The  firft  printed  Edition  ( if  I  millake 
notj  was  taken  from  That  very  Or/V/;^^/ Manufcript  j'l  which  at 
the  lowed  computation  muft  be  680  years  old.  The  Title  of 
the  Creed  5  Fides  CuthoLica  S.  Athanafii  Epifcopi. 

2  There  is  a  fecond,  which  I  have  feen  in  Trinity-College  in 
Cambridge,  annex'd  to  a  Pf alter  defcribed  at  large  by  the  learned 
Mr.  Wanley  in  his  Catalogue,^  and  judged  by  Him  to  have  been 

a  Pfalterii  editio  vulgata  latina,  obelis  Sc  Aftciifcis  diftinfla,  cum  Brunonis  Her6ifoler,/is 
Fpifcopi  Commcntariis,  Anno  ly^i.  a  yo/jantte  CocbUo  in  lucem  c(t  cmilTa,  Uj]er,  lie  E- 
ditione  LXX  Interpr.  p.  to+. 

b  Pfalterium  vetus  obelis  8c  Afterifcis  difli,i(fluni,  cum  Comrnentariis  S.  Brttnonii, 
i\.\i<}i\o  Joannii  Cochhi  Editum,  in  fol.  Herbi^oli,  ijji-  in  410  Lipliae  iJJJ-  Lt  Lo/>g. 
Tom.  1.  p.  274. 

c  Grabe  Prolegom.  ad  F falter*  AkxanJr.  c.  5. 

d  Poftcris  Filiis  fuis  (5'.  Bruno)  mcmornbilcm  &  fanftum  Pfalmorum  Librum,  f.v  quo 
iVt  iviprejfus  fy'?,  Tiimptuofc  fcriptum,  quafi  hircditatis  fpiritualis  non  minimam  portio- 
uem  reliqiiit.   Prolog,  ad  Editionem  Anni   1494- 

Prcciolum  iftum  Thcfaurum  poftcritati  port  fc  reliquif,  &  quidem  infi2ni  fcriptura 
fuirptiiofe  dcfcriptiim— — — — extat  Durium  iIImJ  meirorabile  &  corilpiciium  in  lociiple- 
te  antiquorum  Voluminum  LJ;bliothcca  Heriipolen/JiEcdcCix:  Quod  fane  rcligiofa  pictarc, 
vclut  Harredi^as  quadam  hujus  Sanfti  Patris  Cufloditur.  j^can.  Cotl.l,  prolog,  ad  Edit. 
An.  ifB?. 

e  .7 '/?«/£ //'Catalog.  MflT.  Soptcntr.  p.  £68.  ^ 

writtcii 


7he  ATRAKASI AN   CREED.  57 

written  about  the  Time  of  King  Stephen,  So  tliat  This  is  about 
a  hundred  years  later  than  the  former,  or  about  580  years  old; 
no  Title  to  the  Creed. 

3.  There  is  a  Third,  of  much  the  fame  Age  with  the  former, 
or  fome  years  older,  in  the  Bodleian  at  Oxford,  marked  Land, 
H.  6 1 .  the  Title  of  the  Creed,  Fides  Catholics  Sun^ti  Athannfii 
Epifcopi. 

4.  A  Fourth  I  have  feen  in  the  CMhedralUihmiy  at  York,  which 
may  be  500  years  old.  No  Title. 

5 .  There  are,  as  1  conceive,  Three  more,  which  Tentzelim ' 
gives  us  fome  Hints  of,  in  the  BafU,  Gotha,  and  Leipjick  Libra- 
ries: Tho'  I  have  nothing  to  ground  my  Conjedure  upon  but 
This,  that  the  iirft  words,  recited  by  Tentzelius,  agree  with  Bruno  % 
Comment.  The  Copift  has  added  another  Comment  upon 
the  fame  Creed  together  with  Bruno's ;  one  running  down  in  a 
Column  on  the  right  Hand,  the  other  on  the  Left,  as  I  imagine. 
The  Leipjick  Copy  is  judged  to  be  above  500  years  old  5  The 
Title,  Fides  Anaflafd  Tapd. 

6.  There  is  another,  in  the  Library  of  St.  German  de  Prez, 
about  500  years  old.  Montfaucon,  having  met  with  it,  pub- 
liih'd  it''  as  an  Anecdoton  5  not  knowing  that  it  was  Bruno  %  Com- 
ment, or  that  it  had  ever  been  before  printed.  It  is  not  indeed 
quite  fo  ftdl,  nor  any  thing  near  fo  corred  as  the  printed  Copies : 
But  ftill  it  is  plainly  Bruno's  Comment.  The  Title  5  Trahatm 
de  Fide  Catholica. 

.7.  There  is  alio,  in  my  Lord -K^r/tf/s  Library,  a  modern  Ma- 
nuscript of  this  Comment,  'written  at  Augsburg,  in  the  year  1 547. 
(by  Charles  Peutenger,  Son  to  the  famous  Conrad)  where  the 
Title  is.  Fides  Catholica  Sancii  Anaflafii  Epifcopi.  The  miftake 
of  Anafiafii  for  Athanafii,  we  find,  had  crept  into  the  German 
Copies  fome  Centuries  before  :  wherefore  This  is  not  to  be  won- 
der'd  at.  All  the  oide.r  Copies,  as  well  as  the  Original  Manur 
fcript,  have  Athanafii,  in  the  Title,  where  there  is  a  Title,  and 
Athanafms  in  the  Beginnini^  of  the  Comment. 


a  Ten(z.elii:  Jud.  Enidifor.  p.  114.  and   Preface. 
b  Montfaucon.  Athanaf.  Opcr.  Tom.  i.  p.  j7,f. 


The 


5S  ANTIENT   COMMENTS  upon 

The  Manufcripts  which  1  have  here  recited,  ail  but  the  firft, 
fccm  now  to  be  of  no  great  ufc  ;  if  it  be  true,  as  I  fuppofe,  that 
the  fufl:  prints  were  taken  from  the  very  Original  at  Wurtz.burgh. 
It  is  certain  that  They  are  very  imperfcd,  and  uncorred  (I 
have  collated  Three  of  thcmj  in  comparilbn  of  the  printed  Co- 
pics:  Nor  could  I  obferve  above  two  or  three  places,  and  thofe 
not  very  material,  where  the  printed  Copies  feem  to  iiave  fol- 
lowed a  falfc  reading,  or  may  be  corrected  by  thofe  Manufcripts. 
One  Thing  I  a  little  wonder'd  at,  that  the  three  Manufcripts, 
of  St.  Germans^  Trinity  College^  and  Tork^  Ihould  all  leave  out  fome 
Paragraphs  which  appear  in  the  printed  Copies,  and  the  fame  Pa- 
ragraphs. But  I  have  fince  found,  that  Thofe  very  Paragraphs 
were  taken  out  of  Tortu7zatuss  Comment,  and  belong  not  pro- 
perly to  Bruno  s.  This,  I  prefumc,  the  firft  Copiers  underftood, 
and  therefore  omitted  them.  Probably,  ^r«;?^'s  own  Copy  might 
at  firft  want  them,  (tho'  they  muft  have  been  added  foon  after) 
or  if  Bruno  Himfelf  inferred  them,  yet  He  had  left  fome  mark 
of  diftindion,  which  was  undcrftood  at  That  Time ;  tho*  not 
by  the  Editors  of  this  Comment,  fo  many  years  after.  But  to 
proceed. 

In  the  next  A^e,  the  famous  Teter  ^helard  wrote  Comments 
upon  this  Creed  :  which  are  printed  amongft  his  other  Works. 
The  Title  in  the   Prints,  is,  Petri  Abaelardi  Expofitio  Eidei,  in 
Symbolum  Athmafii.  I  fufped  that  the  Editor  has  added  the  lat- 
ter part,  in  Symbolum  Athanafii^  as  a  Hint  to  the  Reader.    The 
Comment  is  a  very  fhort   one,  fcarce    three  Pages   in  4to,  and, 
for  the  Age  it  was  wrote   in,  a  pretty   good  one  5  tho',  as  I 
conceive,   from  fome  Plaws   in  it,  printed   from  a   Copy  not 
very  Correct. 
1170       Of  the  fame  Century  is  Hildegarde,  the  celebrated  Abbefs  of 
St.  Ruperis  mount,  near  Birpghen  on  the  Rhine.  She  wrote  Ex- 
plications of  St.   BenedicTs  Rule,  and  of  the  Athanaftan  Creed  : 
Which  may  be  feen.  Bibl.  PP.  Tom.  XXllI.  p.   596. 
X  2 1  o       Simon  Tornaccnfis,  Prieft  of  Tournay,  in  the  beguining  of  the 
thirteenth  Century,  taught  Divinity  at  Paris,  with  great  Repu- 
tation. -  His  Manufcript  Works  are  in  many   Libraries  5    and, 
among  his  other  Writings,  there  is  an  Expofition  of  the  Atha- 

^  nafian 


ne  ATHAN^SIAK  CREED.  ^^ 

Jian  CreedJ"  Oudin  reckons  up  four  Manufcript  Copies  of  it,  in 
as  many  difund  Libraries,  and  acquaints  us  where  Tiiey  are  to 
be  found,  and  of  what  Age  they  probably  are. 

Contemporary  with  tiie  former,  is  Alexander  Neckham,  an  En-  1220. 
glip3man.  Abbot  of  Exeter.     He  wrote  a  Comment  on  the  A- 
thanajian  Creed,  which  is  extant  in  Manufcript,  in  the  Bodlemn, 
at  Oxford    (mark'd   N.   E.  7.   8.)  coeval    probably  with  the 
Author. 

There  is  another  Commentary  upon  this  Creed  written  by  i340 
Richardus  HampoluSy  Richard  Rolle  of  Hampole,  a  Native  of  Tork- 
foire,  and  a  Monk  of  the  Order  of  St.  Aufl'm.  It  contains,  in 
a  manner,  Bruno  %  Comment  intirc,  with  feveral  Additions,  and 
Infertions  cither  of  the  Author's  own,  or  fuch  as  He  had  bor- 
rowed elfe where.  It  has  been  twice  printed,  firft  at  Cologne  in 
the  year  1536,  and  afterwards  in  the  Bibliotheca  Patrum,  Lugdun, 
Tom.  XXVI.  p.  624. 

To  the  Latin  Comments  here  mention'd  I  may  add  an  En~  i  ■>  go. 
gUpj  one,  which  I  fuppole  to  be  Wickliff*s,  and  which  I  have 
above  quoted  as  his.  If  it  be  not  his,  yet  certainly  it  is  of  his 
Time,  and  not  far  from  the  middle  of  the  XlVth  Century.  I 
will  firft  give  fome  Account  of  this  Englifh  Comment,  and  then 
fhow  both  why  I  afcribe  it  to  Wickliffj  and  why  I  do  it  not  with 
full  Affurance,  but  with  fome  degree  of  Diffidence.  I  firft  met 
with  it  in  a  Manufcript  Volume  (in  11°)  belonging  to  the  Li- 
brary of  St.  Johns  College  in  Cambridge.  The  Volume  con-- 
taii^  an  E?^glijh  Verfion  of  tlie  ?falms,zv\di  Hymns  of  the  Church,, 
with  the  Athanafian  Creed,  produced.  Paragraph  by  Paragraph, 
in  Latin,  interfperfed  with  ^\\  Englifh  Verfion  of  each  Paragraph, 
and  commented  upon  quite  through,  Part  by  Part.  After  the 
Comment,  follow  Proverbs,  Ecclefiaftes,  Song  of  Songs,  Wifdom^^wd 
Ecclefinfiicus ,  all  in  old  Englifh,  without  Glofs  or  Comment. 
Now,  the  Reafons  why  I  incline  to  afcribe  the  Comment  to 
Wickliff,  are  thefe. 

a  TE.xpofitlo  Symbolt,  per  Simonem  Tornacenfis  Ecclefiae  Canonicum,  &  Parifienfem  Do- 
aorem,  qm  Jtc  incipit  j  Apud  Arijiotelon  Argumeiitum  eft  P.atio  faciens  Fidem,  ied  aped- 
Chriftum  argunicntum  eft  Fides  faciciii  Raiionem.     Ondm.  Tom.  3.  p.  30, 


40  ANTIENT    COMMENTS    vfon 

I  Dr.  Langhd'me,  of  J^eens  College  in  Oxford^  in  a  Letter 
to  Bifhop  l^Kr,  bearing  Date  A.  D.  1647,  tediiics  that  He 
had  feen  fiich  a  Comment,  and  that  He  found  it  to  be  Wickliff's^ 
by  comparing  the  Beginning  of  it  with  B.tlej'  This,  very  pro- 
bably, is  the  fame  Comment  5  tho' there  is  no  fuch  Manufcript 
now  in  Mdz^et^lcu  Colkiie  Oxon^  as  was  in  Dr.  Latizy^ines 
Time. 

2.  All  thofe  Parts  of  Scripture  which  go  before  and  after 
this  Comment,  in  the  fame  Volume,  are  of  the  fame  Verfion 
with  That  of  Wicklijf's  Bible  in  the  Library  of  £;»^/?«f/  College, 
without  any  difference,  (except  that  St.  Johns  Copy,  being  ol- 
der, retains  the  more  antient  Ipelling )  as  I  am  well  afllired  by 
comparing  them  together :  So  that  if  thofe  Parts  be  Wicklijf's, 
it  may  appear  very  probable  that  the  Comment  is  his  too.  In- 
deed, our  very  learned  Whm-ton  was  of  opinion  that  the  Verfion 
commonly  afcribed  to  Wickliff^  was  really  John  Trevifas  who 
was  a  Contemporary  of  Wicklijf's,  and  Vicar  of  Berkely  in  Corn- 
-ivdl.  But  his  Reafons  for  it  have  appear'd  to  Others  not  fa- 
tisfadory,*^  and  have  in  part  been  confuted.'!  \  i^n^  ^ot  enter  far 
into  That  Difpute,  being  ahiioft  foreign  to  my  purpofe :  And  it 
is  not  very  material  whether  TVickliff,  or  Trevifa  fif  Either)  be 
judged  the  Author  of  the  Comment.  This  only  I  may  obfervc, 
by  the  way,  that  Mr.  Wharton  s  Argument  drawn  from  the  Nor- 
folk Manufcript  of  the  Gofpels  (Cod.  254J  which  He  is  pofi- 
tivc  belongs  to  Wicklijf,  appears  to  be  of  fomc  weight,  fo  far 
as  concerns  the  Neiv-Teflament  5  and  the  Inference  may  reach  to 
feveral  parts  of  the  Old-Teftament  alfo.  Either  ,Mr.  JVharton  mufl 
have  been  miflaken  in  afcribing  the  Norfolk  Copy  to  TV/cklijf  or 
die,  for  any  thing  I  fee,  his  Argument  will  fland  good.  The 
CharacHerifiick  which  He  lays  down  whereby  to  dillinguifh^/V/'- 

a  while  I  •teas  there  ( in  M^gd.  College  Librnry)  tumillnt,  amor.^ft  their  Bocks,  I  light 
upon  an  old  Enghfh  Comment  upon  the  yfalms,  the  Hymns  of  the  Church,  and  Athanafius's 
Creed;  which  I  prefently  Cchjeiiured  (tho'  there  be  no  nAme  to  it)  to  be  Wickliff's.  And 
comparing  the  Beginning  wth  Bale,  found  that  I  had  not  erred  in  the  CcnjeBnre.  Laogbaine. 
dfmng  Ufhcr'j  Letters-  p.   5-1  ;. 

b  li'hartvn.  Auftariutn  Hiftor.  Do^mat.  p.  4if.  416. 

c  Oudin.  Comn-cnr.  de  Scripror.   KccleC  Vol.  3.  p.  1 044. 

d  Vid.  Le  Long  B,bL  Bibl.  Vol.  i.  p.  416. 


the   ATHANASIAN    CREED.  4^ 

U/Ts  Verfion  (namely,  the  frequent  infcrtion  of  Syaon-ymous 
words)  will  by  no  means  agree  with  the  common  Veruoii: 
And  then  the  Specimen  He  gives  of  the  two  different  rendrings 
of  Luke  2.  7.  is  diredly  contrary.*  But  a  fuller  Difcullion  of 
that  Point  may  be  left  with  Thofe  who  have  more  leifure,  and 
have  more  particularly  ftudied  it.  I  am  content  to  fuppoie  that 
the  common  Verfion  afcribed  to  Wicklijj  is  really  his :  Per- 
haps He  might  give  two  Editions  of  it  5^  or  elfe  Trevifr\  may 
be  little  more  than  Wicklifs  Verfion,  correded,  and  poliih'd, 
with  great  Liberty,  both  as  to  Senie  and  Expreffion,  where  it 
appear'd  needful.     To  proceed. 

3,  A  third  Reafon  1  have  for  the  afcribing  The  Comment 
to  ivicklif,  is,  that  fome  parts  of  it  feem  to  fuit  exadly  with  his 
Humour,  and  Manner,  and  Way  of  thinkings  particularly  the 
Gird  upon  Popes,  and  Cardinals  in  the  Clofe.'^ 

Neverthelefs,  1  am  far  from  being  pofitive  in  This  matter  ; 
Much  may  be  offer'd  to  take  off"  the  Force  of  thefe  Reafons,  or 
to  counter-ballance  them.  i.  This  very  Comment  is  annex'd 
to  a  manufcript  Commentary y  upon  the  Pfalms  and  Hymns  of  the 
Church,  now  in  Trinity-College  Library  in  Cambridge:  which 
Commentary  appears  not  to  he  Wicklifs,  tho'  fuppofed  to  be  his 
by  Mr.  Wharton.^     The  Englijh  Verfion  of  the  Pialms  going  a- 

a  WicklePus  fic  reddit:  And  futtide  Him  in  a  Crauhe ;  for  place  was  not  to  Him  in  the 

comyn  Stable.  .        .       ,  ^i        ^      tt      ■ 

Alrer  interpres  fic :  And  leide  Him  m  a  Crutche ;  for  there  was  no  place  to   Him  tn  no 

£haumi>re.  \Vh3.non.  ■p.  ^i6.       ^  ,,      .  ^u        t-l  i  ■  l. 

I  haze  a  Manufcript  of  the  NewTeJiament  entire,  belonging  to  our  College  Library,  which 

reads  Luke:  i.  7.  according  to  the firft  reading,  and  whch  has  many   Inflames  o/bynony- 

mous  Infertions  every  where.     It  is  a  different  Verfion  from  That  which  ts  commonly  ajcribed 

to  Wickliff.  ^     ^  „    .  ,     ,. 

b  Pater,  aut  antiquiorem  fuifTe  quandam   S.   Scripturse  TranQationem    ^nglicam,   aut 

duplicem  tuifle  TfanQationis  Wicleviant  Editionem.  Wharton.  Auftor.  Hift.  Dogm,  p.  456. 

c  And  algtf  this  Crede  accorde  unto  Prejlis,  netheley   the  higher    Prelatts,  as  Popis  and 

Cardynals,  and  BH(hoph  JJmlden  more  fpecially  Kunne  this  Crede,  and  teche  it  to  Men  tm- 

dir  hem      Cotnin.  on  the  Atiiin.  Creed. 

Compare  fome  words  of  WickM's  Bilevx;.  ,  /■   ,  /; 

Ifuppofe,  over  this,  that  the  Pope  be  moft  o6liJl,id  to  the  keping  of  the  Gofpel   among  au 

Men  that  liven   here;  for  the  Pope  is   higheft  Vicar  that  Chrifl  has  here  tn  Erth.     Collier. 

Eccl.   Hift.  Vol.  I.  r-  71?.  r  A       u  M<s 

d  Cowmentarius  in  P/almos,  aliofque  SacvA  Scripture  ac  Liturgii  Ecclefiaftici  Hymnos.  MS. 
in  Collegio  S.  Trinitatis  Cantab.  F.  Commentarius  in  priores  89  Pfalmos  habctur  m:>. 
m  Bibliothcca  Lambethana.  Wharton  fub  Wtchlef  Append,  ad  Cav.  H.  L.  p.  f4- 

E  lon.f^ 


42  ANTIENT     COMMENTS    ujon 

long  with  That  Commentary,  is  not  tiic  fame  with  that  oiWick- 
liff's  Bible  :  I  have  compared  them.  The  Commentary,  and  Ver- 
fion  too  arc  reafonably  judged  to  be  Hampole's.  I  find  by  a 
Note  left  in  a  Blank  Page  at  the  Beginning  ( (ign'd  J.  Eujjel) 
that  there  is  a  Copy  of  this  Commentary  in  the  Royal  Library, 
(E.  15.  12.)  but  imperfed  5  the  Prologue  the  very  fame,  and  cx- 
prefsly  aferibed  to  Richard  oi  Hampole  :  From  whence  it  may  be 
judly  fufpcftcd  that  the  Comment  upon  the  Athanafian  Creed 
at  the  end,  appearing  in  part  (for,  two  Leaves  arc  cut  out)  is 
Hampolesj  as  well  as  the  reft.  There  is  in  Bennet  Library,  in 
Cambridge,  another  manufcript  Copy  of  the  fame  Commen- 
tary (Mark'd,  i-i.  Catal.  p.  69 J  with  the  Comment  upon  the 
Creed  entire.     The  Prologue  I  found  to  be  fame  as  in  the  other, 

o 

as  alfo  the  Comment  on  t\\z  firjl  Pfalmj  by  which  I  judge  of 
the  reft."  The  Comment  on  the  Canticles^  at  the  end  is  like- 
wife  the  fame  ;  only  the  Canticles  are  not  all  placed  in  the  fame 
Order.  At  the  Bottom  of  the  Second  Leaf  of  the  Commenta- 
ry, there  is  left  this  Note,  by  an  unknown  Hand :  Author  hujus 
Lihrij  Richardus,  Heremita  de  Hanipole.  Now,  if  this  Commen- 
tary really  be  Hampole's,  of  which  I  can  fcarcc  make  any  quc- 
ftion,  it  will  appear  highly  probable  that  the  Comment  on  the 
Creed  is  his  too.  2.  What  favors  the  Sufpicion  is,  that  here 
the  Comment  is  annexed  to  other  Comments  in  like  Form  with 
it  felf,  and  not  to  meer  Verjions  as  in  the  Manufcript  of  St. 
John's  Library.  Nay  further,  This  Comment  on  the  Creeds  as 
it  appears  in  St.  Johns  Copy,  has  the  feveral  parts  of  the  Creed 
in  Latin,  and  in  red  Letter,  preftx'd  to  the  rcfpcdive  Verllon 
and  Comment ;  juft  as  we  find,  in  Hampole,  the  leveral  parts  of 
each  Pfalm  exhibited  firft  in  Larin^  and  in  red  Letter  :  Which 
Circumftancc  is  of  fome  weight.  3  •  Add  to  this,  that  there  are 
lome  Exprellions  in  the  Comment  on  the  Creed  very  like  to 
thofe  which  are  familiar  with  the  Author  of  that  Commentary 
on  the  Pfalms:  Suchasthcfej  /'/  is  feidcormmly,that  t her  ben  &cc. 
Clerkis  fcin  thus,  and  thus  5  fo  that  from  /imilitudc  of  Style  an 

a  Q.  H^ether  there  bi  not  one,  or  tvo  more  (Copies  of  the  [awe,  in  The  ^oil\chr\.  See  the 
"^odlcizo  Mmn/crif>t},  /« /^f  Gwer.f/ Catalogue.  N.  243S.   iCHf. 

Argument 


7he  AlEANASIAN   CREED.  43 

Argument  may  be  drawn  in  favor  of  Hampok,  as  well  as  for  Wid- 
M',  Thefe  Confidcrations  fuffer  me  not  to  be  pofitive  on  the 
other  Side.  The  Comment  may  be  Hampoles  ;  or  it  may  be  Wick- 
///f' sj  which  latter  Opinion  I  the  rather  incline  to  for  the  Reafons 
before  o^iven,  appearing  to  me  fomething  more  forcible  than  the 
other,  tho'  not  much.  However  it  be,  the  Comment  may  be 
ufeful :  and  if  it  be  HampoleSj  it  muft  be  fet  40  years  higher  than 
I  have  here  placed  it.  The  diftance  of  30,  or  40  years  makes 
no  great  Alteration  in  any  Language :  So  that  meerly  from  the 
Language,  efpecially  in  fo  fmall  a  Trad,  we  can  draw  no  Con*, 
fequence  \.o  \\\^  Author -^  excepting  fuch  peculiarities  as  may  have 
been  rather  proper  to  this  or  that  Mm,  than  to  this  or  that  Time. 

Thefe  are  all  the  mtient  Comments  upon  the  Athmi^fim 
Creed  that  I  have  hitherto  met  with,  or  heard  of;  excepting 
only  fuch  as  have  no  certain  Author,  or  none  mentiond. 

Mumtorius  informs  us  of  Two  Comments  without  Names, 
which  are  in  manufcript,  in  the  Amhrojim  Library,  near  600 
years  old.  One  of  them  bears  for  its  Title,  Expojitio  Fidei  Ca- 
tholics ',  The  Other  has  no  Title.  By  the  Age  of  the  Manufcripts 
(if  Mumtorius  judges  rightly  thereof)  one  may  be  allured  that 
That  They  are  diftind  and  different  from  any  of  the  Comments 
below  AheUrd'.  And  that  They  are  neither  of  them  the  fame 
with  Bruno's,  or  Forttmatuss  may  reafonably  be  concluded,  be- 
caufe  MurMorius  was  well  acquainted  with  Both,  and  would 
eafily  have  difcover'd  it.  Whether  either  of  them  may  prove  to 
be  AbeUrds,  which  has  for  its  Title  Expofitio  Fidei,  and  may  fuit 
w^U  with  the  Age  of  the  Manufcripts,  I  know  not.  Mumtori- 
us,  while  He  makes  mention  of  Bruno,  and  Hildeg.irdis,  whole 
Comments  He  had  feen,  fays  nothing  of  AbeUrd's  :  So  that  pof- 
fibly  one  of  his  manufcript  Comments  may  prove  the  fame 
with  That.  But  if  Neither  of  them  be  the  fame  v/ith  AbeUrd^s, 
nor  with  each  other,. They  muft  be  allowed  to  pafs  for  Two 
diftind  Comments,  whofe  Authors  are  not  yet  known. 

Tentz^elius  informs  us  of  a  namelefs  Comment  (whereof  there 
are  three  manufcript  Copies,  one  at  Gotho;  a  fecond  at  B^^J/l, 
a  third  at  Leipftck)  which  runs  parallel  with  Bruno  s  Comments 
along  with  the  Athmafmn  Creed.     He  gives  us  a  pretty  large 

F  2  Paragraph, 


44  ANTIENT  COMMENTS  iifon 

Paragraph,  with  which  it  begins , '  and  which  1  have  tran- 
fcribcd  into  the  Margin.  The  Leipfick  Manufcript  is  above 
500  years  old.  W^hether  This  Comment  be  a  diftinct  one  by- 
it  fclf,  or  may  fall  in  with  Ibme  or  other  of  Thofe  before 
mention'd,  cannot  certainly  be  known,  unlefs  we  had  Them 
all  to  compare.  It  is  obfervable  that  The  Paragraph,  in  the 
Margin,  with  very  little  alteration,  occurs  in  HampoU's  Latin 
Comment:  Which  begins  alfo  as  Bmnos  does,  with  Hie  Beams 
Athdnnfms  Liherum  arbitrium  pofuit.  From  whence  I  Ihould 
imagine  that  the  Copies  Tentzeliui  refers  to  are  nothing  elfe 
but  (o  many  Copies  of  HampoleSj  were  it  not  that  one  of  them 
is  confidently  averr'd  to  be  above  500  years  old.  If  That  be 
really  fo,  then  Rich.  Humpole  muft  be  faid  to  have  gather'd  up 
his  Comment  out  of  Brums  and  the  other,  with  little  or  per- 
haps nothing  of  his  own:  And  fo  Tentzelims  will  be  a  diftind 
Comment,  older  than  Hampolis.  I  very  much  fufpedt ,  that 
Hampoles  is  really  nothing  elfe  but  a  Collcdion  from  older 
Comments,  without  a  Syllable  of  his  own  :  And  (o  much  the 
rather,  if  what  I  call  Wicklijf's  lliould  prove  to  be  Hampclc's, 
For,  That  EngUpj  Comment  has  no  refcmblance  at  all  witli 
Hampoles  fuppofed  Latiri'  One. 

Nothing  now  remains,"  but  to  clofe  This  Chapter  with  a 
Tabic,  as  I  have  the  former,  reprefcnting  in  one  view  a  Sum- 
mary of  what  is  contained  in  it. 

a  In  dextro  prims  pngim  hiclegi. 

Haec  ratio  Fidei  Catholicae  traditur  in  veteribus  Codicibus  a  bcato  ^najlafio  AUxfirdn- 
■10  fcripta.  Et  puto  quod  idcirco  tarn  pleno  &  brcvi  fcrmone  tradita  fuenr,  ut  omnibus 
Catholicis  8c  iDi'nus  cruditis  tutam  dcfcnfioncm  praflhret  adverfus  illam  Tcmpcftatcm 
quam  contrarius  ventus  (id  eftj  Diabolus  cxcitavit  per  Arriittn:  quam  Te.npcftatcm  qui 
f<;^ere  defidcrar,  banc  Fidei  veritatcm  intcgre  6c  inviolabilitcr  tencar.  Ttntz.el.  p.  uj. 


A  Table 


The  ATHANASIAn    CREED. 


45 


A  Table  of  the  ARTIE  KT  COMMENTS, 

A.D.|  Commentators  |      Countiy       I  Title  of  the  Creed. 


570 

Venmt.  Tortund- 
tus 

Poidicrs 

Fides  C^holica. 

^$2\H'mcmar 

Rheims 

\Symboltmi  Ath^nafii, 

1033  Bruno 

Wurtzburgh 

Fides  Catholic/^  S^n^li  Athana- 
fti  Epifcopi: 

11  ioIMS.  Amhrofmn. 

1     Italy 

[Fides  Catholics. 

II 10 
ri2o 

MS. alter  Amhrof. 

1-    Italy 

1. 

Pet.  AbaeUrdus 

France 

\Symholum  Athdnafii. 

\\7d\S.  Hildegardis 

1     France 

1 

iiSolMS.  Lipjienf. 

Germany 

\Fides  Andfiajii  Pap£. 

1 2 1 0    Simon    Tonm- 
cenfis 

France 

Symholum  Athiimifii. 

1 

1220 
1340I 

Alex.  Neckhnm. 

1     England 

1 

Rich.  Hampolus  | 

England 

[Athanafii  Symbolum. 

1380J  John   Wickliff 


England 


\Crede,  or  Salm,  of  Attmafie, 


V. 


CHAP, 


4(J  ANTIENT    LATIN     MSS.  of 

CHAP.     IV. 

Latin  Mannfcr'tps  of  the  Athanafian  Creed. 


I 


Coiitinc  my  felf  in  this  Chapter  to  the  LMm  Manufcripts, 
fince  the  Creed  was  undoubtedly  written  originally  in  La- 
tm-y  and  therefore  the  Manufcripts  in  any  other  Languages  will 
be  more  properly  treated  of  in  another  Chapter,  among  the  7^^^- 
jions.  None  of  the  Learned  at  this  Day  make  any  queftion  but 
that  the  Creed  was  originally  a  Lutin  Compofurc.  This  They 
pretend  to  be  certain  of,  and  unanimoufly  agree  in;  however  doubt- 
fully they  may  fpeak  of  other  Things,  or  however  They  may 
differ  in  their  Opinions  about  the  Age,  or  Author.  Even  Thofe, 
many  of  them,  who  have  afcribcd  the  Creed  to  AthannfiuSy  have 
yet  been  obliged  by  plain  and  irrefiftible  Evidence  to  acknow- 
ledge, with  the  Legates  of  P.  Gregory  IXth,  that  it  was  original- 
ly ^Liitin.  The  Style  and  Vhrdfeology  of  the  Creed ;  its  early  Re- 
ception among  the  L^ins^  while  unknown  to  the  Greeks ;  the 
Antiquity^  and  Number  of  the  Liitin  Manufcripts,  and  their  A- 
greement  (for  the  moft  p^rtj  with  each  other,  compared  with 
the  Lfttenefs,  the  Scarcenefs,  and  the  Difagreement  of  the  Greek 
Copies,  all  concur  to  dcmonftrate  that  this  Creed  was  originally 
a  Lmtin  compofure,  rather  than  a  Greek  one :  And  as  to  any 
other  Language  befides  thefe  two,  none  is  pretended. 

I  proceed  then  to  recount  the  Latin  Manufcripts  as  high  as 
we  can  find  any  extant,  or  as  have  been  known  to  have  been 
extant  j  and  as  low  as  may  be  necellary,  or  ufeful  to  our  main 
Defign. 
A.  D.  T  he  oldeft  we  have  heard  of  is  one  mention'd  by  Bifhop  V^er, 
600  which  He  had  fcen  in  the  Cotton  Library,  and  which  He  judged 
to  come  up  to  the  Age  of  Gregory  the  Great?-    This  Manufcript 

a  Latino-gallicum  illud  Pfalterium  in  Bibliothcca  Cottonianav\d\mus:  ficut  8c  a}')i  latina 
duo,  lonse  rrajoris  antiquitatis;  in  quibiis,  prsrter  Hymnum  Hunc  (Sc.  Te  Deum)  fine 
uUo' Autorii  nomine,  Hymnt  ad  mMntlnas,  titulo  infcriptum,  &  AthanafianHm  habebatur 
Symbolum,  8c  Apo floUc urn  ^oi\<lcm  oirnino.quot  hodiernum  noflnim  continens  Capirula. 
In  priorc,  quoJ  Gregont  I  Tempore  non  fuifle  rcccntius,  turn  ex  antique  Piadrx  gencrc 

^  has 


the  ATHAN/iSlAN  CREED.  47 

has  often  been  appealed  to  fmce  Ujhers  Time,  and  upon  the 
credit  of  Ufher,  by  the  Learned  on  this  Subjed :  As  particular- 
ly by  Comber,  VEfir^^inge,  Tentz^elius,  Tillemont,  Le  ,^ien,  Mu-^ 
ratoriuSj  NMalis  Alexander,  and  perhaps  feveral  more.  Momfau- 
con  takes  notice  of  Ufher  s  Manulcript  j  but  obferves  that  Ujhet 
Himfelf  allowed  the  Chara^er  to  he  much  later  than  the  Time 
of  Gregory^  Which  would  have  been  a  ftrange  inconMency  in 
ufher,  who  forms  his  Argument  for  the  Antiquity  of  the  Ma- 
nufcript  from  the  Character  it  felf,  and  from  the  a^tient  kind 
of  Piiltire.  But  Montfaucon  is  plainly  miftaken ,  confounding 
what  Ufher  had  faid  of  Another  Manufcript,  in  Bennet  Library 
at  Cambridge^  with  what  He  had  faid  of  the  Cotton  Manufcript 
at  Wejlminfter.  The  Two  Manufcripts  are  very  diftind,  and  dif- 
ferent as  poflible  5  nor  has  the  Latter  any  Athanafian  Creed  in 
it :  Only,  its  being  called  Gregorys  r falter,  occafion'd,  I  fuppofe, 
the  miftake  of  making  it  the  fame  with  the  other.  Te?zt' 
z,eUu^  feems  firft  to  have  confounded  them  together :  And  pro- 
bably Montfaucon  followed  Him  implicitely,  not  having  Ufher 
at  hand  to  confult  5  which  would  immediately  have  difcovered 
the  Fallacy.  Were  there  no  other  Objection  againft  Ufher  s  Ma- 
nufcript befide  what  hath  been  mention'd,  all  would  be  Vv'ell, 
But  it  is  of  greater  weight  to  obferve,  that  there  is  not,  at  This 
Day,  in  the  Cotton  Library  any  fuch  manufcript  Copy  of  the 
Athanafian  Creed ;  nor  indeed  any  Latin  Pfaltcr  that  can  come 
up  to  the  Age  of  Gregory,  or  near  it.  There  is  an  antient  ? fal- 
ter ^iiark'd  Vefpafian  A)  wix)te  in  Capitals,  and  illuminated  5  and 
which  might,  by  the  CharaBer,  be  as  old  as  the  Time  of  Gregory 
the  Great  j  were  it  not  certain,  from  a  Charter  of  K.  Ethelbald, 

collig;tijr,  turn  ex  Literarum  Forma  Grandiiifcula,  Athanafianum  (\\i\itvni'Eidei  Catholic£> 

-^ilterum  vcro  Symio'i  Apojiolorum  pTxkrt  Tkuluw.     In  pofteriore,  quod    Regis- 

JEthelfia»i  a,\iqu:indo  fait,  Afiojiolicum,  vice  verla,  Symbolum  fimpliciter,  alterum  autem 
7idei  SanUi  Athanafii  Alexmdrini  "nuncupatur.     UH^r.  deSynib.   Prsf.  p.  2,  9. 

a  Codicum  omnium  quihadenus  vifi  memorarique  font,  antiquiiTiir.us  ille  eft  qui  ab 
I7/em  laudatur,  ^MoGregorii  ALi^wi  confcriptLis  j  fi  tamen  ea  vcre  lit  ejus  MS.  a;tas;  ram 
addit  Ujferim,  fcripturam  dvo  Grfgorii  longe  ejfe  tcftenorem.  Montf.  Diatr.  p,  711. 

b  In  Pfalterio  Graeco  Papse  Gtegorii,  ur  prifert  Titulus  (Tcriptura  enini  sevo  Gregorh 
lOfige  eft  poftcriorj  Pfalterio  videlicet  Grsco  &  Romano,  latinis  utroque  literis  defcnpto, 
quod  in  Benedi^tni,  apud  Cmtubngtenfes,  Collegii  Bibliotheca  eft  reconditum,  Ufl'er.  de 
Symb.  p.  9. 

c  Tentz,elii  Judic  £ruditor.  p.  49,  £/  Exercit.  Selea.  p,  ic>. 

Wiittca 


48  ANTIENT    LATIN     MSS.    of 

written  in  the  fame  Hand,  and  at  the  fame  Time,  and  formerly 

beloni;ing  to  it/  that  it  cannot  be  let  higher  than  the  year  7 1 9 
when  EthelhM  began  to  reign. 

This    Vjdter  has  the  Te  Deum^  with  the  Title  of  Hymnus  W 
Miitutinurfi,  as  Ufhers  had ;  and  alfo  the  Athdnajitin  Creed  with 
the  Title  of  Fides  Catholics  \  but   Both  in  a  very  different  and 
much  later  Hand  than  That  of  the  P falter  it  Seifj  later  by  fe- 
veral  -Centuries,    as  the  very  learned  Mr.  Wmley^  JLidges,  v/ho 
fets  the  Age  of  the  ? falter  about  1000  years,  but  of  the  Atha- 
nafian  Creed,  &c.  at  the  Time   of  the   Norman   Conqueft.     A 
Sufpicion,    however,    may   from   hence    arife,    that   This  very 
f falter,  with  what    belongs   to    it,  might    be   the  ? falter  &c. 
which  V^er  fpake  ofj  elpecialiy   fmce  there  is  none  other  in 
the  Cotton  Library  at  all  like    it.     But,  on  the  contrary,  it  is 
to  be  confider'd,  that  This  ? falter  has  no  Apoftolical  Creed  at 
all  in  it,  which  V^er  affirms  his  to  have  had  :    Nor  has  it  the 
.Hym?ms  Matuttnus,  beginning  with,  Gloria  in  excelfis  Deo,  which 
Ufhers  alfo  had.'^  Neither  is  it  at  all  probable  that,  if  Uj)jer  had 
intended  the  P falter  now  extant  in  the  Cotton,  He  ihould  give 
no  hint  of  the  Saxon  Vcrfion  going   along    with  it ;  efpecially 
confidcring  that  it  might  be  made  an  Objeclionto  its  Antiqui- 
ty.    Nor  do  1  think  that  fo  inquifitive  a  Man  as  up)er  could 
cither  have  being  ignorant  of  the  Age  of  Ethelbald,  or  of  his 
charter  having  been  once  a  part  of  That  Manulcript.     In  his 
Hijloria  Dogmatical  He  takes  notice  of  this  very  P falter  ( now 

a  Conftat  vero  ex  Hijforia  &  Svfiopft  Biblioth  Cottonia-ijs,  quam  in  iiigens  Reip.  litera- 
r\x  Bcneficium  cdidit,  aniplificandis  bonis  Litcris  natus,  doftifflmus  Thomas  Smuhm  no- 
ftcr,  &  indtculo  Pfalterii  latini  in  majufculis  fcripti  cum  Vcrfione  Saxonlc:*  intcrlineari, 
O'jod  notatur  Vefp.i/iMi.  A.  I.  Chartaiii  hinc  {JEihdbaUi  R.  Aujlralmm  Saxonnm)  ex  ifto 
MS.  cxfciflam  cfle.  Quod  etiam  illius  quum  mcnfura  qu«  cum  Foliis  illius  MS.  quad- 
rat, turn  etiam  Manns  in  utroquc  prorf  js  eadem,  turn  dcniquc  Locus  MSS,  unde  itifla 
eft,  inter  Folia  X,  &  XI,  codicem  vertcntibus  oftaidit.  Hukef.  Dijftrt,  Epijl.  in  Lmgn. 
Scptentr.  Thefaur.  p   67. 

b  Vid.  M^anltii  Cii\.&\.  MSS.  Septentrion.  p.  lit. 

c  Ad  Fincm  vcterum  Ffalterioruni  Latinorum,  cum  ^pofiolico  8c  Athanafiano  Symbo- 
lo,  etiam  Hymnus  iftc  (^c.  Gloria  Sac.)  habctur  adjecftus.  in  antiquifTimo  Cotioniano  ir- 
■tmy^ap^  eft:  in  JEthtlftaniano  proximo,  Hymnus  in  die  Domtmco  ad  Matutinas,  infcri- 
bitur.  Uffer,   dc  Symbol,  p.  7,1,. 

d  In  Bibliothcca  D,  Koberti  Cotton  cxtat  Pfaltc-ium  Romanum  vctuftifTunum,  cum  vcr. 
fione  interlincnri  Saxonica:  Clnrader  idem  cum  charta  JEtJpilbaltli  Anglorum  Regis,  anno 
736  dat2.  Ujfer  Hislo.  Dogmat.  p.  104, 

marked 


%e  ATBAKASIAN  CREE^.  4;, 

marked,  Vefpajim  A)  and  of  the  Saxon  Verfion  in  it,  and  like- 
wile  of  its  being  in  the  fame  Hand  with  Ethelbald's  Charter : 
And  there  He  lets  the  Age  of  it  no  higher  than  the  year  7  3  6, 
( that  is,  above  1 3  o  years  later  than  Gregory  I. )  without  the 
leaft  Hint  that  He  had  ever  miftaken  the  Age  of  it  before,  or 
had  thought  otherwife  of  it  than  He  did  at  the  Time  of  his 
writing  this  later  Treatife.  Thefe  Confiderations  convince  me 
that  Billiop  U/Jfj^-r  had  feen  fome  other  Manufcript,  which  hasfince 
That  Time,  like  many  more,*  been  loft,  or  ftoilen  from  the  Cottoji 
Library.  He  that  was  i^o  accurate  in^every  Tittle  of  what  he  fays 
of  K.  Athelfians  Pfalter,  (mention'd  at  the  fame  Time )  could 
never  have  been  fo  negligent,  or  rather  plainly  carelefs,  in  re- 
fped  of  the  other.  I  conclude  therefore,  that  there  really  was 
Ilich  a  pfalter  as  Ujher  defcribes,  with  the  Athanafian  Creed  in  it  > 
fuch  as  He  judged  to  be  of  the  Age  of  Gregory  I,  from  more 
Marks  than  one :  And  how  good  a  Judge  He  was  in  Thofe 
Matters,  is  well  known  to  as  many  as  know  any  thing  of  That 
Great  Man,  one  of  the  brighteft  Ornaments  of  his  Age,  and 
thoroughly  vers'd  in  all  kinds  of  Literature. 

Next  to  This  o^  Bijhop  Ufber  we  may  place  the  famous  Ma-  660 
nufcript  of  Treves,  from  which  the  Colbert  Manufcript  (to  be 
mention'd  hereafter  in  its  place)  was  copied.  Mr.  Anthelmi  fets 
it  as  high  as  the  year  450,  upon  a  prefumption  that  the  Col- 
bert Manufcript  is  as  old  as  the  year  600,  and  that  150  years 
may  reafonably  be  allow'd  between  the  Colbertine  Copy  and 
TUat  from  which  it  was  Copied.  Tillemont,  fuppofing,  or  ad- 
mitting the  Colbert  me  to  be  near  the  Age  that  Anthelmi  men- 
tions, yet  thinks  5  o  years  difference  might  be  fufficient ;  and 
that  therefore  the  Age  of  the  Treves  Manufcript  might  be  fix'd 
at  550,  or  thereabout.''  But,  iince  the  Colbert  Manufcript  can- 
not reafonably  be  fet  much  higher  than  760,  as  we  fhall  fee 
in  its  proper  place;  Llliall  not  pretend  to  fet  the  Treves  Ma- 
nufcript above  660  ;  and  that  only  under  the  favourable  Al- 
lowance of  a  probable  Conjecture.  The  Authority  of  this  Ma- 
nufcript of  Treves  ftands  upon  the  Credit  of  a  Paifage  prefix'd 

a  Vid.  rho.  Sm'iibt  Praefationem    ad  Catalag.  MSS.  Bib'.  Cotton. 
<b  TilUmcnt  Merrioircs.  Tom.  8.  p.  670. 

G  to 


50  ANTIENT    LATIN     MSS.    of 

to  the  Colbert ine  Copy/  which  declares  that  the  latter  was  co- 
pied from  a  Maiiulcript  found  at  Treves.  It  was  not  a  Copy 
of  the  i?Hire  Creed,  but  began  at  the  Second  Part  wliich  relates 
to  the  Incarnation.  For,  after  the  Words,  believe  rightly  the  In- 
carnation of  our  Lord  Jefus  Chrift,  (being  only  part  of  the  fore- 
going Sentence)  follows  j  For^  the  right  Faith  is,  that  we  believe , 
and  fo  on  to  the  end  of  the  Creed.  This  remaining  part  of  the 
Creed  is  very  different  from  the  common  Copies,  and  feems  to 
have  been  fo  contrived  with  defign,  as  1  Ihall  have  occafion  to 
obferve  more  at  large  in  the  Sequel.  And  it  is  to  me  an  Argu- 
ment that  the  Manufcript  was  written  while  the  i^^/jV^^/^^  Con- 
troverfy  was  at  the  Height,  about  the  End  of  the  5th  Century, 
or  Beginning  of  the  Sixth  5  tho'  1  here  fet  it  a  great  deal  lower, 
becaufe  This  is  not  the  Place  to  explain  that  matter  fully,  nor 
would  I  too  far  indulge  a  bare  Conje^ure.  It  is  fufficient  to 
fuppofe  ir  written  in  the  Vllth  Century,  as  it  was  undoubted- 
ly copied  from,  as  early  if  not  earlier  than  the  Vlllth. 
700  After  the  Manufcript  of  Treves,  may  juftly  follow  the  Ambro- 
fian  Manufcript,  which  is  in  the  Ambrofian  Library  at  Milan  j  a 
Copy  of  which  has  been  publilh'd  by  Muratorius,  in  his  Second 
Tome  of  Anccdota.  It  was  brought  thither  from  the  famous 
Monajlery  of  Bobbio  (of  High-Lombardyj  in  the  Milaneje)  found- 
ed by  Columbanus,  A.  D.  6 1 3.  The  Character  of  the  Manufcript  is 
Langobardickr,  and  it  is  judged  by  Muratorius  (who  has  more  par- 
ticularly examin'd  it)  to  be  above  1 000  years  old.''  By  his  Account 
then,  who  wrote  in  the  year  1698,  we  ought  to  fet  the  Age 
of  This  Manufcript  higher  than  698.  Yet,  becaufe  Montfaucon^ 
who  in  his  Travels  through  Italy  had  alfo  feen  it,  puts  it  no 
iiigher  than  the  Vlllth  Century,*-"  we  lliall  be  content  to  place 

a  H«c  inveni  I'reviris  in  uno  Libro  fcriptum,  fie  incipiente,  Domini  nofiri  Jefa  Chrifii 
{y-  reUqua.     Domini  nrftn  Jvfu  Chrijli fiileliter  rrcJat.     Apiid  Montf.  Diatrib.  p.  72-8. 

b  In  alio  etian^  vetuftiHimo  Ambrolianae  Bii^liothccx  Codicc  ante  mille  cr>  plitres  annos 
fcripto,  Symbolum  idem  fum  nadtu?.  Murator,  Tom.  i.  p.   i6- 

Cxteruni  opuiculum  Hoc  (bachiarii  Fides)  mihi  dcpromptum  eft  ex  antiquiflimo-r^;»- 
hrofinn*.  Biblioih^cac  Codice,  quern  ante  Anna  minimum  mtlle  conlcriptum,  CharaAcrum 
Forma  non  (^ubitantcr  teftatur.  Fuit  autem  olim  Celebris  Monafterii  Bcbienfis,  ftc  ex 
illo  in  Amirofianam  UMiHitaa  migoo  Card.  Frederico  Borromio  &c.  Murator.  Tom.  i. 
p.  8.  item  p.  114. 

c  Codex  VllI-  Ssculi,  Charafterc  Lungobardico,  in  quo  CemaJii  liber  dc  Ecdcfiafticis 

it 


Tk   ATHANASIAN   CREED.  51 

it  between  theVIIthand  Vlllth,  or  in  the  year  700,  to  make  it 
a  round  Number.  There  are  in  this  Manufcript  fome  Re^Jmgs 
different  from  the  common  Copies  j  v/hich  lliall  be  carefully 
noted  hereafter.     It  is  without  any  Title. 

We  may  next  fet  down  K.  ^//7^//?WsP  falter,  of  which  Bifhop  70% 
Ujher  had  taken  Notice,  making  it  next  in  Age  to  the  other  moft 
antient  one  of  the  Age  of  Gregory  I.     He  and  Dr.  Gr^be  Both 
fix  the  Date  of  it  to  the  year  703,  from  the  Rule  of  thzCde?^- 
dar  found  in  it."  Dr.  Srrikh,  in  his  Catalogue  of  the  Cotton  Ma- 
nufcripts,  inclines  to  think  that  the  Manufcript  is  later  than  That 
Time,  but  taken  from  one  that  was  really  as  early  as  the  year 
703  j  the  later  Copift   tranfcribing  (as   fometimes   has    been) 
the  Book  and  the  Rule  word  for  word,  as  He  found  Them.^ 
Allowing  This  to  have  been  the   Cafe  here  (tho*  it  be  only 
Conjedurej  it  will  ftill  be  true   that  there  was  a  Manufcript 
of  the  Age  of  703,  with  This  Creed  in  it;  from  whence  the 
later  One,  now  extant,  was   copied :    which  ferves    our  pur- 
pofe  as  well  5    and  the  reft  is  not   material.      I  have  nothing 
farther  to  obferve,    but  that   the  Vfdter  wherein  This  Creed 
is,    is  the  Gdlicm  Pfalter,  not  the  Rom^.n;    and  the    Title    is. 
Fides  SanBi  Athmafii  Alexmdriniy    The  Faith  of  St.  Ath^nafms 
of  Alexandria :  The  oldcft  Monument,  of  any  we  have  extant, 
afcribing  this  Creed  to  Athmafms;  excepting  only  the  Coun- 
cil of  Autun  in  670,  if  we  may  depend  upon  the  G?;^^;^  afcribed 
to  it. 

Dogmatibus,  Baehimi  Fides,  Symholum  ^thanafii,  omnia  eadem  raanu.  Montfattc.   Diar. 
Ital.  p.  18. 

a  Pfalterium  illud  anno  cierx  noflrx  Chriilianse  703,  longe  ante  JEthelflani  regnantls 
Tempora,  ex  Regulis  KcilencUrio  in  libri  initio  fubjunftis  fcriptum  fuilFe  deprehendi,  t/^er. 
de  Synib   p.  6. 

Quod  Regis  Mthelfiani  fuilTe  dicitur,  atque  Anno  703  Scriptum  eft.  Gral>ii  Prologom. 
in  Pfalt.  Alexandr.  c.  5.  . 

b  Hie  vero  venerandx  Antiquitatis  Liber  fere  ante  mille  Annos  defcriptus;  ut  Quibuf- 
dam  ex  Calendario,  quod  Annum  Chrifti  705,  certo  deiignat,  illic  prEfixo  videtur.  Sad 
cum  Librarios  eandem  Temporis  adnotationem,  quse  ad  vetuftilTimos  Codices  proprie  8c 

peculiariter  Speftat,  fuis  exemplaribus  appofuiffe  faepiffime  obfcrvaverim —an  fit 

jlle  ipfe  Codex  autographus  qui  tantam  prae  fe  ferat  atatem,  vel  annon  potius  fseculo,  sut 
circiter,  ante  Tempera  &theljlani  dclcriptus,  vix  pro  certo  prsftareiiij  ad  poftcriorem 
fententiara  favcntiori  animo  inclinaturas.  Smith.  Bibl.  Cotton.  Hiftor.  p.  44. 

G  2  Wc 


5t  ANTIENT    LATIN   MSS.  of 

760  We  may  now  take  in  the  Colbertme  Copy,  of  which  I  have 
before  fpokcu,  referring  the  Date  of  it  to  the  year  760,  or 
thereabout.  Montfdiicon  fets  it  abo\'e  the  Age  of  Charles  the 
Cireutt^  allowing  ic  to  ha\e  been  written  about  the  Time  of 
Te^in^  who  began  to  reign  in  the  year  752.  So  that  I  can- 
not be  much  out  of  Time  in  placing  it  as  I  have  done.  It  is 
written  in  Saxon  Cliaracler,  and  is  imperfect  5  wanting  the  lirft 
Part,  above  one  Half  of  the  Creed,  jufl  as  the  Manufcript  of 
Treves  from  which  it  v/as  copied. 

760  The  Manufcript  of  St.  Germans j  at  Paris,  is  intire,  and  of 
the  fame  Age  with  the  former.^  It  is  mark'd,  num.  257,  and 
written  in  a  Saxon  Letter,  as  well  as  the  other.  The  Title, 
Fides  Sancii  Athanafii  Epifcopi  Alexa/idrix.  It  differs  in  fome 
places  from  the  common  Copies  fas  Ihall  be  noted  hereafter) 
tho'  not  near  fo  much  as  the  Colbert  Manufcript  before  men- 
tion'd. 

772  Next  to  thefe  is  the  famous  Manufcript  of  Charles  the  Create 
at  tlie  end  of  a  Gallic  an  Pfalter,  written  in  Letters  of  Gold, 
and  prefented  by  Charlemagne ,  while  only  King  of  France,  to 
Pope  Adrian  I,  at  his  firlt  Entrance  upon  the  Pontificate,  in 
the  year  772.  Lambecius  in  his  Catalogue  of  the  Emperors  Li- 
brary at  Vienna,  where  I'his  Manufcript  is,  gives  a  large  Ac- 
count of  it.'-'  The  Title  is  >  Fides  Sancii  Athanafii  Epjcopi  A- 
lexofidriniy 

SCO       There  is  Another  Manufcript  in  the  i?o^^/ Library  at  Farts-, 

a  Nongentos  fupcrat  Annos,C(?/^?r//««i  codex  78+.  Saxonicis  defcriptus  Uteris,  &,  mca 
quidem  fententia,  ante  statem  Caroli  Magni  cditus— —  Sunt  qui  Codicem  ilium  i  loc 
annorum  efle  adfirmarunt  :  Vcrum  periti  quique  xvo  circiter  P//>/«/ exaratum  arbitrantur. 
Mcntf.  Diatr.  p.  711. 

Nee  tamen  Codicis  Colbert'mi  Auftoritate  nititur  Hasc  Sententia,  quam  arbitratur  An- 
thelmius  iK.o  annoruni.  Rtenim  fquod  pace  viri  cruditifllmi,  mihique  aniicifTimi  dica- 
'ur)  multo  minoris  aetatis  Codex  efTe  comprobatur ;  nemo  cnim  peri'.us  cui  Librum  ex- 
iiibucrim,  Oflavo  earn  Siculo  antiquiorcm  arftimavir.  Mentfauc.  ibid.  p.   724. 

b  Paris  Saltern  Antiquitatis  cfl:  Sangerm;inenfis  noftcr,  num.  if?.  Saxonicis  pariter  literis 
cxaratus,  qui  Titulum  habcl,  Fides  SauHi  Athntmfii  Epifcopi  Alexandra.    Montf.  p.   711. 

c  Lambecii  Catnl.  Biblioth.  Vindobonenf.  Lie  5.  p.  %6i.  29(5.  8cc.  Carolus  Magma 
proprio  carmine  luo  tcftatur  fe  ilium  Codicem  fummo  I'ontifici  Hadriano  I.  dono  mi- 
iifTej  8c  qutdem.  ut  ego  arbitror,  illo  iplb  Anno  771.  cujus  die  decimo  Februarii  jam 
memoratus  Hadrianns  in  fummum  Pontificepi  clcdus  eft.     Lambec,  ibid. 

X  mark'd. 


Ih    ATHANASJAN    CREED.  55 

mark'd  4908,  which  Montfmcon  judges  to  be  near  900  years 
old/  He  wrote  in  the  year  1698.  So  if  w^e  place  it  in  the 
year  800,  we  Ihall  want  a  Httle  of  900  years,  from  That  Time. 
He  fuppofes  it  of  very  near  the  fame  Age  with  the  Vienna, 
MantUcript.  It  bears  no  Tttky  nor  any  Name,  or  Note  of 
the  Author. 

I  may  here  place  a  Manufcript  of  Benet  College  Library  in  850 
Cambridge y  whole  Age  I  cannot  certainly  fix  to  a  year ;  But  by 
all  Circumftances  it  cannot  well  be  fuppofed  later  than  This 
Time.  It  is  at  the  end  of  a  ? falter,  which  by  comparmg  I 
find  to  be  a  Gdlican  Pfaltcr.  It  feems  by  the  Names  of  Samts,  and 
other  marks,  to  have  been  written  in  England.  Bilhop  Parker 
left  a  Remark  in  it  about  it's  being  in  the  pofleflion  firft  of 
one  of  the  Arch-biihops  of  Canterbury,  and  at  length  conveyed 
down  to  the  Hands  of  Beckett  who  was  Arch-bilhop  of  G«;2- 
/d-r^/^rj  in  the  year  11 62.  The  great  Antiquity  of  the  Manufcript 
appears  from  the  Martyrs,  ConfeJJors,  and  Virgins  addrefs'd  to  in  it  5 
all  of  the  early  Timcs.^  There  are  fome  few  Variations  in  This 
Copy,  fuch  as  are  alfo  found  in  the  moft  antient  Manufcripts 
of  this  Creed ;  particularly  the  word,  Et,  frequently  inferred  be- 
fore Spiritus  Sanclus,  which  has  been  fince  eras'd  by  fome  offi- 
cious Hand.  The  Title  is  obfervable;  Fides  SancH  Anaflhafii 
Epifcopi.  Anajlhafiij  for  Athanafii,  by  a  Tranfpofition  of  Syl- 
lables. 

Montfaucon  informs  us  of  a  Manufcript  in  the  Colbert  Libra-  860 
ry,  Num.  1339,  which  once  belong'd  to  Charles  the  Bald,^  w^ho 
di^  in  the  year  8775  began  to  reign  840.     It  cannot  therefore 

a  Regius  Codex,  num.  4908  annorum  penc  nongentorum,  nullum  habet  Titulum,  nul- 
lumque  Aucloris  nomen.  iEquahs  ipfi  eft,  qui  memoratur  a  Lambecio  &c.  Montf.  ibid, 
p.  7ZI. 

b  Hoc  Pfalterium  {^N.  X]  laminis  argenteis  decauratum,  8c  gemmis  ornatum,  quon- 
dam fuit  N.  Cantuar,  Archiep.  tandem  venit  in  manus  ThowA  Becket  quondam  Cant.  Ar- 
chiep.  Quod  teftarum  eft  in  vctfri  fcripto.  Matth.  Cant.  Vid.  Catal.  MSS.CC.  C.  C.p.  43. 

c  In  Litaniis,  Orate  pro  nobis,  Sanfte  Contujlor,  Sanfte  Herafme,  Sanfte  OwoUe  8cc. 
Martyres.  S^n(keCuth&erte,  Siniie  Germme,  SunGiG  Placide,  Sandte  Columbane,  S&n&cCau- 
re»r/«c&c.  Confeflbres.  Sanfta  Br/^^rV/^,  Sanfta  £//^e>7//?,  Szr\^2.'Euklia,  Szv.Aa  Petronella, 
&c.  Virgines.     Et  non  funt   hifce  recen.tiores.     Catal.  JVISS.  B;bl.  C.C  C.C.  p.  43. 

d  Colbertinus  N.  ijjp.  Qui  fuit  Karuli  Cahi  iraperatorisj  inCcribituri  Fitles  Athana-- 
fii.    Moutfauc  Diatrib.  p.  7ii. 

be 


3  4  ANTIENT    LATIN     MSS.   of 

be  much  amrfs  to  fix  upon  860  for  the  Date  of  it.  The  Title 
it  bears  is  l-ides  yithm^Jii. 

S  3  ^  There  is  a  Second  Manufcript  Copy  of  the  Ath^nafinn  Creed, 
ill  the  Library  of  Be7iet  (or  Corpis  chrifli)  College,  mark'd  N. 
O.  V.  It  is  at  the  end  of  a  Gdlican  Pfalter,  in  the  fame  hand, 
and  carrying  its  certain  Date  with  it.  It  was  written  in  FrancCy 
by  Order  of  Count  Amadeus^  or  Ach^dem\^  and  in  the  year 
883,  as  appears  from  the  Litnitj.^  The  Title  is.  Fides  Ca- 
tholics. 

930  Mr.  Wsinlcj  gives  us  an  Account  of  a  Roman  Pfalter  in  the 
Ro)d  Library,  (  formerly  of  St.  James's )  with  an  interlinear 
Saxon  Vcrfion  to  it,  written  about  the  Time  of  King  Athel- 
flm."^  Among  the  Canticles  at  the  End,  there  is  alio  This  Creed, 
under  the  Title  of  Hjmnus  Athanafii :  A  Title  w^hich  feems  to 
have  been  then  cuftomary  in  England,  as  may  be  probably  ar- 
gued from  a  Saxon  Verfion  (to  be  hereafter  mention'd)  of  the 
fame  Age,  or  very  near,  and  bearing  the  like  Title.'i  I  muft 
be  fo  juft  to  my  Reader  as  to  acquaint  Him,  that  after  diligent, 
and  repeated  Search  into  the  King^  Library,  This  Manufcript 
could  not  be  found  :  So  that  I  cannot  be  abfolutely  certain 
that  hlymmis  Athanajii  means  this  Creed.  But  yet  I  can  fcarcc 
make  any  doubt  of  it,  confidering  the  Vlace  it  has  among  the 
Canticles,  and  that  This  very  Title  ufed  to  be  given  to  the 
Creed. 

957  In  the  Arch-biihop's  Library,  at  Lambeth,  there  is  a  Galilean 
Pfalter,  written,  according  to  Mr.  Wa-nley,^  in  the  Time  of 
King  Edgar,  or  a  little  before.  At  the  End,  there  is  the  A- 
thanafian    Creed  in   the    fame  antient  Hand,   with  an  interli- 

a  Ad  Finem  Pfalterii,  AchaJeus,  mifericorilia  Dei  ccmes  hunc  P/alterium  ftribere  jujft. 
Vid.  Catal.   MSS.  p.  46. 

b  Oratur,  tit  Marinum  Apojlolicum  in  Sanffa  religione  confervare  digntrts,  ut  Karloman- 
num  Kegem  perpetua  profperitate  confervare  dignern :  ut  Regmam  confervare  digneris:  $tt 
Tiilconem  Epifcoptim  cum  omni  grege  fibi  commijjo  in  tuo  apto  fervitw  confervare  digneris.  Vid. 
Catetlng.   MSS.  C.C.  C.C.  p.   47- 

c  Jf^«/f/»  Catal -MS.  Septentr-  p.  iSi. 

d   Hymnus  Athmafii  de  Fide  Trinitaris.  Vid.  Wootoni  con/peHnm  Brevem  opera  Hicke- 

fiani.  p-  77. 

c  TVanlTii  Catal.  p.  169.  EaJgari    Regis   Anglofaxonum  Temporibus,  aut  paulo  ante,  ut 

vidctur,  cxaratiis.  '  ' 

Wharton,     Auaarium  Hiftoriac  Dogmatical  p.  374-  Alfred^  ^irxxvn  rccentior  vidctur. 

near 


The  ATHAN/ISIAN  CREED.  5^ 

near  Saxo^   Vcrfion.     The  Title,   Fit^es  Cafhclka   S^n^i  Atha- 
n/ifn  Epifcopi. 

There  is  another  Manufcript  Copy  of  this  Creed,  much  of  970: 
the  fame  Age  with  the  former,  in  my  Lord  Hurleys  elegant  Li- 
brary, richly  furniOi'd  with  all  kinds  of  curious,  and  valuable 
Manufcripts.  This  Creed  is  at  the  End  of  a  Gallicdn  Pfalter, 
and  has  an  interlinear  S^xon  Verfion  to  it.  Mr.  Wanley  who 
was  fo  kind  as  to  acquaint  me  with  it,  and  to  favor  me 
with  a  fight  of  it,  refers  it  to  the  Time  of  King  Edgar  5  who 
began  his  Reign  in  957,  and  died  in  973.  The  Title  is,  Eides 
Catholica^  Athi^nafti  Alexandr'mi  Epifcopi. 

In  the  Cotton  Library,  there  is  a  Gdlicm  Pfalter,  with  Saxon  103 1 
interlined  fmark'd  ViteU'ms.  E.  18.)  which  Mxi.Wanley  refers  to 
the  year  103 1.'     The  Athmmfian  Creed  at  the  End,  as  ufual, 
among  the  other  Canticles,  bears  the   Title  of  Fides   Catholics 
Athanafii  Epifcopi  Alexandrmi. 

In  the  Norfolk  Library,  there  is  alfo  a  C^/Z/V^^^  Pfalter,  whofe  1050^ 
Age  is  fix'd  by  Mr.  Wanley^  to  the  Time  of  Ed^vard  the  Confef- 
for.  The  Creed  is  in  it,  and  has  an   interlinear  Saxon  Verlioa 
running  along  with  it.  The  Title,  Fides  Catholic  a  Athanafii  Alex. 

In  Benet  College  Library  is  a  manufcript  Copy  of  this  Creed  10^4 
without  any  Title.  The  F falter  wherein  it  is,  is  called  Fortiforium 
ofwaldi^  and  is  mark'^d,  K.  i  o.   An  Account  of  the  Book  may 
be  feen  in  Mr.  Wanley,  and  in  the  Catalogue. 

I  may  here  place  the  Cotton  Manufcript  before  mention'd,  1066 
bou^d  up  with  the  2inticnt  Roman  Pfalter  mark'd,  Fefpafian  A ; 
tho'  of  a  very  different,  and  much  later  Hand.  The  Creed  has 
an  interlinear  Saxon  Verfion,  as  ufual  5  and  its  Title  is.  Fides 
Catholic  a.  Mr.  Wanley  judges  it  to  be  as  old  as  the  coming  in 
of  the  Normans.^ 

Of  the  fame  Age'^   is  tlie  Roman  Pfalter  in  our  Publick  Li-  io64 
brary  at  Cambridge^  witli  the  Latin  Text  in  black  Letter,  a  Saxon. 
Verfion  in  red,  and  the  Titles  in  green.     The  Creed  is  inter- 

a  V/xnU\i  Catal  p.222.  1.^\.  Smith.  Catal.  Cotton,  p.  lOr. 
b  Wanliit  Catal.  MSS.  Septentr.  p.    291. 
c  iVanle'u  Catal.  p.  aii.  ^w/V/?.  Bibl.  Cutton.  Hiflor.  p.  jj-.. 
i.  IVmlmQzxA-  p.  152. 

lined 


«\' 


S6  ANTIERT  LATIN   MSS,    of 

lined  witli  Saxon,  as  well  as  the  Vfaiter,  but  has  no  Title :  For, 
from  this  Time,  I  conceive,  The  Title  began  to  be  left  out  in 
fome  Copies,  for  Brevity  fake,  or  becaufe  it  was  thought 
fuperfluous. 

It  will  be  needlefs  to  take  notice  of  any  Manufcripts  below 
this  Time,  excepting  only  fuch  as  contain  fomething  ffitr- 
ticidar. 

1090  <^iicfnel,''  and  after  Him  Tagi^  fpeaks  of  a  manufcript  Copy 
of  this  Creed  in  a  Brevity  and  Pjlilter  for  the  uie  of  the 
Monks  of  Mount  Caffin,  judged  to  be  about  600  years  old. 
I  fuppofe,  This  may  be  the  fame  Breviary  that  .^eftiel  has 
made  Obfervations  upon,  in  another  Work,  which  I  have  not 
fecn,  but  find  referr'd  to  by  Father  Le  Long:^  And  there  J^^/^ 
nel  fixes  the  Age  a  little  below  io'^6 ,  paulo  pojl  Annum  108 (5. 
The  Title  of  the  Creed  is,  Fides  Sii  Athanafii  Epijcopi:  The 
Letter,  Langohardick. 

1120  In  my  Lord  Harleys  Library  I  had  a  fight  of  a  Manufcript  writ- 
ten in  Germany  about  600  years  ago,  fortheufe  of  the  Church 
of  Augsburg  5  which  bears  for  its  Title  ;  Fides  Anaftafti  Fpifcopi. 

T24.0  Ujher  takes  notice  of  a  Copy  of  This  Creed  then  in  the 
Royal  Library  at  St.  Jarizes^  ( formerly  belonging  to  Lewis  the 
IX)  the  Title,  Fides  Catholic  a. 

1300  Montfaucon  informs  us  of  a  Latin  and  a  French  Copy  of  this 
Creed  found  in  a  Manufcript  about  400  years  old  j  placed  in 
oppofite  Columns.  What  is  remarkable  is,  that  the  Latin  has  for 
its  Title  Canticum  Bonifacii^  and  the  French  over  againfi  the 
other,  Ce  chant  St.  Anaiflaife  qui  Apofioilles  de  RomeA 

In  the  Bodleian  at  Oxford,  there  is  a  manufcript  Copy  of  this 
Creed  (  num.    1204)  which   has    for    its   Title,    Anafiafii    Fx- 
pofitio   SymboU  Apofiolorum.      It  is  about  300   years  old,  and  be- 
long'd  oncp  to  the  Carthufian  Monks  at  Mcntz-.     The   Carthu- 
Jians  are  particularly  noted  for  their  more   than   common    Ve- 
neration for  this  Creed,  reciting  it  every   day   at  the  Prime,  as 

a  ^ffntl.  Diflert.  XIV.  aci  Leon.  Opcr.  p.  731. 

b   Pagt  Critic,  in  Biroii.   Vol.   i.  p.  44.1. 

c  Le  Long   Bib!.  Bibl.  Vol.  1.  p.  144. 

<i  Montfaiicon.  Diatrib.  p.  712.727.  >• 

Cardinal 


1400 


The   ATHANASIAN    CREED.  57 

Cardinal  5^;^/?  teftifies,  both  of  Them  and  the  Ambrofiam-,'  which 
I  remark  by  the  way.  I  obferve,  that  the  German  Copies  of 
this  Creed,  for  5,  or  6  Iiundred  years  upwards,  have  moft  com- 
monly Amfiafms.  inftead  of  Athmafms.  I  make  no  queftion  but 
that  This  firft  arofe  from  a  Miftake  of  the  Copifts,  and  not  out 
of  any  Defign.  One  may  perceive,  that  Anaftajius  is  fometimes 
v/ritten  where  ^-^^^^^^^^  oi  Alexandria  mufil  have  been  intended, 
and  none  elie.  1  fuppofe,  at  firft,  fome  Copies  had  accidentally 
Amjihafms  for  Atharmfms  (as  one  in  Benet  College  Library  men- 
tion d  above)  by  a  tranfpofition  of  letters  or  fyllables ;  as  eafi- 
ly  happens  in  writing,  or  fpeaking.  Thus  Phrunmm  for  Fhnrnu-  • 
tus,  Marivadiis  for  Varirnadus,  and  the  like.  NoW,  when  the 
Copies  had  thus  introduced  Amfthafms,  {Anaf-tha,  for  Atha-naf:) 
Thofe  that  came  after  left  out  the  /?,  to  make  it  Anafiafms , 
That  being  a  common  Name,  which  the  other  was  not.  This 
I  thought  proDcr  to  hint  tliat  it  may  appear  how  little  reafon 
there  i^  for  afcribing  this  Greed  to  Anafiafius,  whether  of  Rome-, 
or  of  Antioch,  or  Any  Other. 

I  have  now  run  through  the  Manufcriprs  of  greateft  note, 
or  ufc,  either  for  Antiquity,  or  for  any  thing  f  articular,  to  give 
light  to  our  further  Inquiries.  Two  only  1  have  omitted,  which 
have  been  thought  confiderable  j  not  fo  much  in  themfelves, 
as  upon  account  of  the  other  Tra^s  They  were  found  to  be 
join  d  with.  I  would  iiavc  taken  notice  of  them  in  tlieir  place, 
had  I  certainly  known  what  Time  to  refer  them  to.  The  one  is 
the  Manufcript  found  in  tl^e  Library  of  Thuanus  (Codex  Thuanem) 
annex'd  to  fome  Trads  which  were  once  fuppofed  to  belong  to 
Vitilius  Tapfenjis,  tho'  now  certainly  known  to  be  none  of  his. 
_^ejnel  was  much  pleas'd  with  the  Difcovery  of  this  Manu- 
fcript, as  favouring  his  Hypothefis  about  Figilius  rapfe?2fis:^  And 

a  Bona  de  Divin.  Pfalmod.   c.   i8.  p.   897.  90°'  . 

b  Abioluta  Diflertationum  noftrarum  Editione,  inveni  Codicem  Thimieim,  m  quo  Dia- 
logus  V>giln  Tapfcnfis  adverfus  Ariams,  Sabellianoi,  &  Fhothiimos  legitiir,  fub  hoc  Titulo; 
iKcipit  Altercatio  Athanafn  cum  H^refibus.  Port  hunc  Traftatum  habccur  Symholum  Nicp 
w{frj,  8c  Formula  Fidei  Ariminenfis  Concilii,  quam  proxime  fequkur  Symbolmn  Aihanaji- 
anum  cum  hoc  F.pigraphe:  VUei  dia»  a  SanSlo  Athanafio  Epifcopo.  Porro,  Conjeftura: 
noftrae  de  AuSore  hujus  Symboli  non  parum  fuffragatur.  quod  in  anticinijjimo^  Codice  il- 
ligatum  rcperiatur  Opufculo  cui  nomen  Athanafit  pariter  proefixum  legitur,  led  quod  Vt- 
ntlii  Tapfenfis  efle  indubitatum  habetur  2<c.  ^uefnelin  Addend,  p.  913. 

'^        ^^  "^  II  Anthel^ 


5  8  ANTIENT    LATIN     MSS.    of 

Anthelmius  has  taken  fome  pains  in  confuting  Him ;  {howing 
that  the  fuppolcd  Works  of  Vigtlim  arc  none  of  his,  *  and  that 
if  they  were,  yet  no  certain  Argument  could  be  drawn  from 
thence  to  make  f'/^i//«i  Author  of  the  Creed;  fince  it  is  a  com- 
mon Thing  for  Trads  of  feveral  Authors,  efpecially  if  They 
relate  to  the  fame  Subjedt,  to  be  tack'd  to  each  other. 

The  Second  Manufcript  is  one  that  was  found  annexed  to 
x\\z  Fragments  oi  HiUry  oi  Voiciiers -^  which  Circumftance  was 
i;hought  a  reafon  for  afcribing  this  Creed  to  HiUry.  VoJJius 
firft,  and  after  Him  many  Others  throw  it  off  as  a  very  fliglit  Ar- 
gument, fuicc  the  Manufcript  pretended  is  very  modern,  nor  is 
the  Creed  afcrib'd  to  HiUry  in  that  Manufcript,  but  only  bound 
up  with  his  Fragments,  as  any  other  Work  might  be,  however 
little  akin  to  them.  Montfuucon  takes  notice  of  This  matter, 
in  few  words,'=  Tentz^elius  more  at  large.'^  It  is  fufficient  for  me 
juft  to  have  hinted  it. 

Having  now  given  as  particular  Account  as  was  needful  of 
the  more  antient  Latin  Manufcripts  of  this  Creed,  I  may  juft 
obferve  that  as  to  Modern  ones,  they  are  innumerable,  there  be- 
ing fcarce  any  manufcript  Utin  Pfalter  of  modern  Date  but 
what  has  the  Creed  in  it>  and  generally  without  a  Title.  I  may 
next  fubjoin  a  Table  of  the  Manufcripts  here  recited,  reprefen- 
ting  in  one  Viev/  the  Age,  the  Title,  the  Country  where  writ- 
ten, and  the  kind  of  Pfalter  wherein  found :  All  which  Cir- 
cumftances  will  be  of  ufe  to  us  in  our  following  Inquiries. 
Particularly,  as  to  the  P falters,  it  will  be  of  moment  to  obferve 
whether  They  be  Roman,  or  Gallican  -,  becaufe  from  thence  we 
may  be  able  to  difcover  in  what  Places,  or  Countries,  this 
Creed  was  lirfl:  received,  according  to  their  ufe  of  This,  or  That 

a  Vtd.  Montfaiic.  Athan.  Op.  Tom.  2.  p.  60;.  714.. 

b  Invcnirur  id  fimiliter  in  Fragmentis  HiUni  hiftoricis  in  Cod.  vetcri  part,  2.  Sub 
Fmem.  FeUhman.  Var.  Leift,  Open.  Athan.  p.  83. 

c  Hilario  nonnulli  adfcriptum  voluerunt,  quia  ninairum  in  Codicc  r^uodam  cxftat  pofl 
yiilarii  Fragmcnta.  Quafi  vcro  id  non  vulgo  &  in  plcrifque  Cod;cibus  obfcrvetur,  ut 
mulra  diverforum  opera  confcqucntcr  in  manufcriptis  dcfcribentur.  Cum  autem  in 
eiuCmodi  Codice  pofl  Hilariana  opera,  nullo  praEmifTb  Au(floris  nomine  cornpareati  hinc, 
Mtijam  fupft  diximus,  inferenduni,  turn  cxaratum  tuilTe  cum  pro  Afhanafiano  nondum 
rulj^o  haberetur.  Mont/.  Diatrib.  p-723>  '  ' 

d  Tentztl.  Judic.  Erud.  p.  a,  3.  ^e.  n 

Pfalter. 


The   ATUANASIAN    CREED.  55? 

Pfdter.  But  becaufe,  perhaps,  fome  Readers  may  be  at  a  lofs 
to  know  what  we  mean  by  thofe  different  Names  of  Roman,  and 
Gallkan  Pfalters  5  it  may  not  be  improper  here  to  throw  in  a 
few  previous  Inftrudions  relating  to  the  different  kinds  of  Latht 
Pfalters,  and  the  Names  they  have  gone  under. 

There  are  four  kinds,  or  forts,  of  Latin  Pfalters  5  which  have 
pafs'd  under  the  Names  of  It  dicky  Romany  Galilean^  and  Hebrmck. 
One  of  them  was  before  Jerom\T'm\Q,\  the  Three  laft  are  all 
Jeromes  as  He  had  a  Hand,  more  or  lefs,  in  every  one  of 
them.  I  fhall  treat  of  them  diftindly,  in  their  Order,  as 
follows. 

I.  The  Itdick  Latin  Pfalter,  is  of  the  old  Tranflation,  or 
Verfion,  fuch  as  it  was  before  Jerom's  Time.  I  fhall  not  enter 
into  the  Difpute  whether  it  were  one  Verfion,  or  many.  The 
common  Opinion  is,  that  there  were  feveral  Latin  Verfions 
before  Jerom,"-  but  one  more  Eminent  than  the  refl  called  Ita- 
lick^  as  being  received  into  common  ufe  in  Italy."^  However 
that  be,  it  is  become  cuflomary  with  fuch  as  treat  of  this  Sub- 
jed,  to  fpeak  of  all  that  was  extant  before  Jerome  as  of  One 
Verfion^  under  the  Name  of  Fetus  Vdgata,  or  Verfio  Italica.  There 
are  intire  ? falters  of  this  old  Verfion,  print ed^  and  manufcript  -^ 
tho'  now  no  where  in  ufe  in  Divine  Offices,  except  fuch  par- 
cels of  it  as,  having  been  antiently  taken  into  the  Roman  Mif- 
fals,  or  other  old  Liturgies,  remain  there  flill,  the  People  being 
accuftom'd  to  them,  and  there  being  no  great  neceillty  for 
cl^anging  them.  But  all  the  intire  Pfalters  in  uie  are  of  another 
kind.  Martianay,  in  his  Edition  of  Jerom's  Works,  once  intend- 
ed to  give  us  an  intire  and  corred  Pfalter  ('with  fome  other 
of  the  Sacred  Books)  of  the  old  Italick  Verfion.  But  the  Various 

a  Quienim  Scripturas  ex  Hebrxa  Lingua  in  Linguam  Gr&cam  verterunt  numerari  pof- 
funt,  'Latim  autem  interpretfs  nullo  modo:  ut  enirn.  Cuique  primis  Fidei  TeriTporibiis  in 
manus  venit  Codex,  &  aliquantulum  facnltatis  fibi  utriufque  LinguK  habere  videbatur, 
aufus  eft  interpretari.  Auguft.  "de  Doftr.  Chriftian.  1.  a.  c.  xl.  p.  if.  Tom.  3. 

b  In  ipfis  autem  interpretationibus  Itala  CJeteris  prscferatur:  nam  eft  verborum  tenacior 
cum  perfpicuitate  fententiae.     Auguft.  ibid.  p.  17. 

c  Ecclefia  latina  a  principio,  vel  ferme  a  principio,  ufa  eft  vcrfione  latina  Teftamenti 
Vet.  ex  Graeca  tSk  0  tranflatioue  fadla,  qux  Itala  vulgo  dicebatur,  quoniam  in  /?a/m  prius 
ufitata  in  alias  inde  latinoruni  Ecclefias  recipiebatur.  Humphr.  Hodins.  De  Biblior.  Text. 
Origin,  p.  342. 

d  Le  Long  Biblioth.  Bibl.  Vol.  1.  p.  245. 

H  2  Legions 


60  ANTIENT    LATIN    MSS.    of 

Leciions  were  fo  many,  and  fo  different,  that  the  Work  appear'U 
too  laborious  and  ditHcult  for  Him ;  for  which  rcafon  He  then 
laid  it  afide."  This  Vcrfion,  or  Vcrfions,  is  what  all  the  Latins 
iifcd  before  Jerom  5  and  many  alfo  after  Him,  the  Africans  efpe- 
ciaily ,  down  to  the  Vlth  Century  at  leaft,  or  beginning  of 
the  Vllth. 

2.  The  Roman  Pfalter  is  not  very  different  from  the  Old  Jta- 
lick.  It  is  nothing  ellc  but  That  Old  Verfion  curforily,  and 
in  part,  corrected  by  Jerom^  in  the  Time  of  Pope  DamaJ'uSj  A. 
D.  3  8  3 .  It  has  had  the  Name  of  Roman,  becaufe  the  Ule  of  it 
began  the  fooneli,  and  continued  the  longcft  in  the  Roman  Of^ 
fices.  It  obtain'd  in  Gaul  near  as  foon  as  at  Rome,  but  was  laid 
afide  in  the  Vlth  Century,  when  Gregory  of  Tours^  intro- 
duced the  other  Pfalter,  fmce  c^Wcd  Gallic  an.  The  Roman  Pfalter 
however  ftill  obtain'd  at  Rome  till  the  Time  of  Pope  Pius^  the 
Vth  :  And  it  is  ftill  ufed  in  the  Vi^tican  Church,  and  fome  few 
Churches  befides. 

3  The  Gallican  Pfalter  is  Jcrom's  more  corred  latin  Tranfla- 
tion  made  from  Origen\  Hexaplar,  or  moft  correct  Edition  of 
the  Greek  Sepuagtnt,  fiU'd  up,  where  that  was  deficient,  from 
the  Hebre-iv ;  diftinguilh'd  .with  Obelisks,  and  v^<?m/T,  denoting  the 
common  Greek  Verfion  in  thofe  places  to  be  either  redundant, 
or  deficient.     Many  of  the  old  Manufcripts'^  ftill  retain  thofe 

a  Appendicem  Sacrorum  aliquot  Voluminum,  juxta  Te/frfw  Vulgatam  ufu  receptam 
ante  Hierohymum ,  hoc  loco  edendam  ftatueramus :  Sed  quum  Opcri  manus  jamjam  ac- 
cederer,  tantani  inter  MSS.  Codices  hujia  zer/ionis  latino  deprehendimus  diflbnantiam, 
lit  impofflbilc  eflct  vel  folas  v^riantcs  horum  Codicum  Le£iiones  tdnotafle  nifi  maximo 
Tcmporis  intcrvallo.  Quarc  ne  in  fcqucntcm  annum  differrctur  Editio  hujus  Diztns 
"BiblwihecA,  Appendicem  praediftam  latioriOperi,  ac  majori  Otio  rcfervavimus.  Martian- 
Not.    ad  Hierohym.  Vol.  i.  p.  14 19. 

b  PfalmoB  autem  cum  fecundum  LXX.  Intcrpretes  Romani  adlmc  habeant  j  Ga//i  gc  Ger- 
manorum  Aliqui  fecundum  Emendationem,  quam  Hieronymus  Pater  dc  LXX.  Edirione 
rompofuit,  Pfa'.tcrium  cantant:  quam  Gregorius,  Turonenjis  Epifcopus,  a  partibus  Roma- 
nis  mutuatam,  in  Galliarum  dicitur  Ecclcfias  tranftulifle.  Walafrul.  Strab.  dc  Rcb.  Ec- 
clcf.  c.  If. 

c  Vjd.CW.  Bona  rerum  Liturgic.  1.  i.e.  3.  Humphr.  Hod.  p.  385.  MAblllcn.  deCurf. 
Gallican.  p.  391}. 

d  The  C\)"-on  h'anufcript  cf  705,  and  the  Benct  of  8P3,  Lambeth  of^'j'j,  and  Bruno*.f 
•w»  Manu!"  ,'t  of  1033.  Befides  many  more  in  France.  Quanta  porro  tuerit  diligentia  No- 
ftralium  in-Jcfcribendo  hoccc  Pfaltcrio,  cum  Afterifcis  8c  obelis,  non  aliunde  teftatum 
Yolumus  quam  ex  infinita  copia  Codicum  MSS.  qui  cum  talibus  diftin(5lionibus,fupcrfunt 
iii  Gallicanis  Bibliothccis,  Martin.  Hteronym.  Op.  Vol.  i.  ProlegQin,  2.  c,  j-. 

Marks  • 


The   ATEANASIAK   CREED.  6i 

Marks :  But  more  have  left  them  out,  I  fuppore,  to  fave  Trouble. 
This  more  corred  Pfaiter  was  drawn  up  by  Jerom  in  the  year 
389,  andobtain'd  firli  mGatd  about  the  year  5  So  ;  or  however 
not  later  than  595:  From  which  Circumftance  it  came  to  have 
the  name  of  GaUican,  in  conrraditlindion  to  the  Rommi.  From 
Caul,  or  France,  it  pafs'd  over  into  England  before  the  year  5  97,. 
and  into  Germdny^  and  Spain^  and  other  Countries.  The  Popes 
of  Rome,  tho'  they  Themfelves  ufed  the  other  Pialter,  yet  pa- 
tiently connived  at  the  ufe  of  This,  in  the  Weftern  Churches,  and 
even  in  Italy  it  felf,  and  fometimes  privately  authorized  the 
ufe  of  it  in  Churches  and  Monafteries  -^  till  at  length  it  was 
publickly  authorized  in  the  Council  of  Trent,  and  introduced 
a  while  after  into  Rome  it  felf  by  Vim  the  Vth.  It  was  admit- 
ted in  Britain,  and  Ireland,  before  the  coming  of  Augujiine  the 
Monk,  and  prevaii'd  after,  except  in  the  Church  of  Canterbury^ 
which  was  more  immediately  under  the  Arch-bifhop's  Eye,  and 
more  conformable  to  the  Roman  Offices,  than  other  parts  of 
the  Kingdom.  This  very  Gallican  Pfaiter  is  what  we  ftill  re- 
tain in  conftant  ufe,  in  our  Common-Prayer  Books :  The  other, 
in  our  Bibles,  is  from  the  Hebreiv,  by  feveral  learned  Hands. 

4.  The  Hebraick  latin  Pfaiter  means  Jerom' s  own  Tranllatioii 
immediately  from  the  Hebrew,  made  in  the  year  391.  This 
tho'  otherwife  of  great  Efteem,  was  never  ufed  in  the  publick 
Church-Offices.*^  There  are  but  few  Copies  of  it,  in  compari- 
fon,  any  where  to  be  met  with,  becaufe  This  R falter,  as  be- 
fore hinted,  having  never  been  in  common  ufe,  like  the  Ro- 

a  Anno  1369.  XJrbani  V.  Autoritate  Sancitum,  ut  CaJJinenfes  Pfalterio  Gallicano  ute- 
rentur.  Montfauc.  Diar.  Ital.  p.  331.  P.  Adrian,  long  before,  had  recommended  the  CsX- 
lican  Pfaiter  to  the  Church  o/Breme.     See  below  in  Ch.Vl.  and  C.  Bona,  p.  /06. 

b  Ante  Adventum  ^ugitflini  Monachi,  primi  Archiepifcopi  Cantuarienfis,  in  Angliam, 
i.  e,  ante  annum  5*97,  Bcclefia:  BntannicA  &  Hibemici.  Pfalterium  Gallicanum  recepeianti 
KAugMJi'mui  hue  a  Gregorio  M.  raiflus  Romanum  fecum  advexit,  &  Eccleliae  fujE  Cantuari-^ 
enfi  tradidit.  Sed  loco  illius  invaluit  tandem,  per  omnes  Ecclefias  Anglicas,  uliis  Calltcanii 
Bodius.  de  Text.  Bibl.  Origin,  p.  384. 

c  Tertium  eft  de  Hebr^o  in  latinum  quod  Jeronymus  tranftulit  de  Hebraeo  in  Latinumi 
Sed  non  eft  in  ufu  Ecclefix,  fed  viri  ftudii  literati  &  fapientes  eo  utuntur.  Koger:  Bacont 
apud  Hodittm  da  Text.  Original,  p.  3  8+. 

Hsec  autem  (Verjio  ex  HebrAo)  idco  recepta  non  fuit,  quia  duae  priores,  quotidiano  ufa 
la  Ecclefiis  frequentatar,  fine  magna  divini  officii  perturbatione  non  poterant  abrogari. 
^na,  Rerum  Liturg.  1.  2.  c.  3.  p.  _j-o6.    F;</.  etiam  Hodiftm.  p.  38/. 


Ci  ^NTIENT    LATIN     MSS.  of 

man  and  Gdlioin ,  has  been  confined  to  a  few  Hands.  W'! 
are  not  to  expect  an  Athan^fiari'  Creed  in  This  Pfalter,  as  not 
being  intended  tor  the  Uic  of  the  choir :  neither  are  we  to 
cxped  to  meet  witii  it  in  the  Ualicl:  P falters  which  are  few, 
and  which  were  grown,  or  growing,  out  of  ufe  before  the  A- 
th.majian  Creed  was  brought  into  the  Pubhck  Offices.  But  in 
the  Roma?i  and  Giillicnn  Pfalters,  we  may  find  it :  And  it  will 
be  of  moment  to  obferve  in  wliich  of  them  it  is  found.  In- 
deed, fome  manufcript  Pfalters  there  are,  which  have  the  Roman 
and  Gullican  together  in  oppofite  Columns,  the  Gallican  always 
fet  firft/  Others  have  the  Hebrmck  and  Gailtcan  fet  Column- 
wife  as  the  former :  And  fome  have  all  the  Three  Verfions  of 
Jerom  placed  in  the  like  order.  Dr.  Hody  informs  us  of  Two 
fuch  Manufcripts,  to  which  maybe  added  a  Third  now  in.  Trini- 
ty-College  in  Cambridge,  which  has  the  Athanafitm  Creed  with 
Brums  Comment  in  it 5  as  intimated  above.  Nay  fome  Ma- 
nufcripts have  the  Greek  alio  with  the  other,  making  a 
Fourth  Column  :  An  account  of  fome  Manufcripts  of  this  laft 
fort  may  be  feen  both  in  Dr.  Hodj^  and  Le  Long}'  Thefc  Double, 
Triple,  or  Qtiadruple  Pfalters  came  not  in,  I  prefimie,  before 
the  end  of  the  Ter^th  Century,  or  begmning  of  the  Eleventh. 
For  Berno  Augienfis  of  that  Time  acquaints  us  with  the  occa- 
fion  and  ufe  of  them,  and  how  They  came  to  be  fo  contriv- 
ed. When  the  Roman  way  of  Singings  firft  adapted  to  the  Ro- 
man Pfalter,  had  been  introduced  into  France ,  and  Germany 
(which  was  firft  done  in  the  Vlllth  Century)  in  proccfs  of  Time 
it  bred  fome  confufion  in  the  two  Pfalters,  mixing  and  blend- 

a  Hody  de  Text.  Bibl.  Original,  p.  385-. 

b  Le  Long  Biblioth   Bibl.  Vol.  I.  p.  244. 

c  Inter  cxrcra,  ex  emendara  LXX  Interprcturo  Tranflatione  f[aL  er  Grate*  in  Lati- 
num  vertit  {titer onym us)  illudque  camandum  omnibus G^//f«,  ac  quibufdam  Germanii^C' 
cicfiis  tradidit.  Et  ob  hoc  GaUicnnHm  ffultermm  appellavit,  Romanis  adhuc  ex  corrupt* 
vulgata  Editiorie.  Pfalterium  canentibus  :  ex  quz  Roman i  cantum  compofucrunr,  nobifque 
ufum  cantandi  contradidcrunt.  Unde  accidit  qucd  verba,  qui  in  diurnis  vel  nofturnif 
Officiis  canendi  more  modulantur,  inrermifceantur,  &  confufe  noftris  Plalmis  inferan- 
tur  ;  ut  a  minus  pcritis  baud  facile  poflit  difcerni  quid  nojln,  vcl  Rom.ms.  convcniat  Edi- 
tioni.  Quod  pius  Pater  ac  peritus  Magiftcr  intuens,  tres  Edttionts  in  uno  Voluminc  com- 
pofuit:  &  Gallicmum  Pfalterium.  quod  nos  canimus,  ordinavit  in  una  Columna,  in  altera 
RomnHum,  iri-tcrria  Heir  mm.  Berno  Augienf.  Epift.  inedit.  apud  Maiill.  dc  curfu  Gallica- 
no-  p-39<5.  Ho<//«w  dc  Text.  Original,  p.  38'a. 

ing 


The  ATHAN^SIAN  CREED.  dj 

ing  them  one  with  the  other  j  that  it  was  difficult  to  diftin- 
guifh  what  words  belong'd  to  This,  and  which  to  That.  To 
remedy  This  inconvenience,  a  way  was  found  out  to  have  Both 
the  Pfalters  diftindly  rcprefcnted  to  the  Eye  together,  in  Two 
feveral  Columns :  And  thus  came  in  the  kind  of  Pfalters  be- 
fore mentioned.  We  eafdy  fee  why  the  Gdlican  ufed  to 
be  fet  in  the  firfl  Column  :  Namely,  becaufe  Thofc  Pfalters, 
were  contrived  by  the  French y  and  Germans,  who  made  ufe  of 
the  Galilean,  and  fo  gave  the  preference  to  their  own.  If  I 
have  detained  my  Reader  a  little  too  long  in  This  Digrellion 
about  the  Pfalters ;  I  hope  the  ufefulnefs  of  the  Subjed  may 
make  Him  fome  amends,  and  be  a  juft  Apology  for  it.  I  now 
return  to  our  Creed,  and  what  more  immediately  belongs  to  it  j 
clofmg  This  Chapter,  as  I  promis'd,  with  a  T;?^/^  reprefenting  a 
Summary,  or  Ihort  Sketch  of  what  hath  been  done  in  it. 


A  Table 


^4 


A  Table  of  MAMVSCRITTS. 


1300 


A.  Dnl 

MSS. 

1      Pfaltcrs 

Tiiles  of  the  Crred. 

60  J 

Bp.   Ull}ir'5 

1                        1 

Tides  Catholtc.-i. 

660 

Treves 

I                        i 

700 

Ambrojian                        |                        | 

70? 

Cotton    I 

1     Gnliican    . 

t'tJes    'iancli  Athanajts  Aiexa.nrittu 

760 

Colbert    i                        |                        | 

760 

St.  ■Germani 

1 

Fides  Sancii  Athana;ii  Epi'copi. 

77* 

Vienna 

1     Gallican 

Fides  SanBi  Athanajii  Epifcopi  Alexandrini. 

800     1 

Regius,  Paris                 \                        \ 

8fo    j 

Benet.  Coll.  C.vnt.  i . 

1     Gallican     J 

Fides  Sancii  ^najlhafii  Epi/copt, 

S60 

Co'.bcrt    2 

1                      1 

Fides  Athavnjii 

883 

Benet  C.  2 

1     Gallican 

Fides  Cathciica. 

930 

S/.  James's   i 

[     Roman     | 

I     Gallican 

Hymnus  jithanajii. 

95-7     ! 

Lambeth 

Fides  CAthoitca  S.  Ath:inafii  Epifcopi. 

970 

Harley   i 

1     Gjllican    1 

Fides  Catholica  Athanafii  Alexandnni  Epiffopt. 

1031 

1     Cotton  2 

1     Gallican 

Fides  Cathoiua  Atkanafii  Epifcopi  Alexa>idrini. 

lOfo 

1       Norfolk 

1     Gallican     | 

Fides  Catholica  Aihan.i/ii  Alexandnni. 

10.')+ 

1      Bei.et  C.   ^                     1                        1 

1 066 

Cjtton   } 

1 

Fides  Catholica 

1066 

1     Cambriilge 

1     Ronian 

1090 

CaJJinenfis 

FrJes  Sancii  A:l;ana{ii  Epifcopi. 

I  120 

\      Harley  2 

Fides  Annftafii  Epifopi. 

1240 

1     St.  fameih   2 

1       Fides  Cathoiua. 

Friars   Minors 


Galilean      I      Canticum  Bonefacit. 


Ce  Chant  fi^fl  St  Anai/laie  qui  Apofloilles  de  Rome. 


1400     I      Bodleian 


Anajh/ii  Expojitio  Symboli  Apojlolorum. 


CHAP. 


^5 


CHAP.     V. 

Antient   Verjions,  printed  or  mamifcript . 

SOME  Account  of  the  antient  Veriions,  of  the  Athmmfin-ii 
Creed,  may  be  of  ule  to  fhew  when  and  where  it  has  been 
received,  and  what  Fdt^e  hath  been  fet  upon  it,  at  feveral  Times, 
and  in  feveral  Countries.  I  fhall  note  the  Time,  in  the  margin, 
when  the  firfi  Verfion  into  any  Language  appears  to  have  been 
made :  And  1  lliall  rank  the  Verfions  of  the  feveral  Countries 
according  to  the  Chronological  Order  of  Thofe  Firft  Verfions 
rcfpedivcly. 

FrenchVersions. 

Undei  the  name  of  French  Verfions,  I  comprehend  all  Ver- 
fions made  at  any  Time  into  the  njulgar  Language  then  cur- 
rent in  Fr^.nce,  whatever  other  Name  fome  may  pleafe  to  give 
them.  I  beg  leave  alfo  to  comprehend  under  the  fame  Name 
all  Ord  Verfions  delivered  by  word  of  mouth,  as  well  as  writ- 
ten ones :  Otherwife  I  am  fenfible  that  I  ought  not  to  have 
begun  with  French  Verfions.  I  do  not  know  that  the  Gauls,  or 
French  had  any  written  {landing  Verfion  of  This  Creed  fo  ear- 
ly as  850,  or  for  feveral  Centuries  after.  Their  oldeft  Verfions 
of  the  P falter  are  fcarce  earlier  than  the  Xlth  Century,'  and  of 
the  intire  Scripture  fcarce  (^  early  as  the  Xllth:^  And  we  are  not 
to  expect  a  written  Verfion  of  the  Athanafian  Creed  more  an- 
tient than  of  their  Pfalter.  But  what  I  mean  by  fetting  the 
French  Verfions  fo  high  as  I  here  do,  is  that  the  Athanafian  Creed 
was,  as  early  as  is  here  faid,  interpreted  out  of  Latiri>  into  the 
vulgar  Tongue  for  the  ufe  of  the  People,  by  the  Clergy  of  France, 
in  their  verbal  Inftrud-ions.  This  is  the  fame  Thing,  in  effed, 
with  a  written  {landing  Verfion,  as  fupplying  the  Place  of  it  5 
and  is  as  full  a  proof  of  the  general  Reception  of  the  Creed,  at 
That  Time,  as  the  other  would  be.  Now,  that  the  Athanafian 

a  See  Le  Long,  Biblioth.  Bibl.  Vol.  i.  p.  313.  ^c. 

I  Creed 


)^' 


CC  ANTIENT  VERSIONS  of 

Creed  was  thus  interpreted  into  the  vulgar  Tongue  in  France^ 
as  early  as  the  year  850,  or  earlier,  I  prove  from  the  words  of 
Hincmnr^  above  cited,  giving  Orders  to  the  Clergy  of  his  Pro- 
vince to  be  able  to  exprels  Tliis  Creed  communihus  'verbis ^  that 
is,  in  their  vulgar,  or  Mother  Tongue.  What  That  mix'd  kind 
of  Language  which  They  then  ufed,  fnould  be  called,  is  of  no 
great  moment  to  our  prcfent  purpofe  to  inquire.  Some  per- 
haps, with  Vitus  Amerbachius,  and  Bifhop  Ujljerj  ^  will  call  it 
Teutonick-,  or  German,  becaufe  the  Franks  and  Germans,  being 
Originally  the  fame,  fpake  the  fame  Language.  But  I  fee  no 
confequencc  that,  becaul'c  Fra-aks  and  Germans  ufed  the  tame 
Language,  therefore  Franks  and  Gauls  mix'd  together  mull:  Hill 
keep  the  fame  5  any  more  than  that  a  mix'd  Nation  of  Nor- 
mans,  and  Saxons,  mull  all  agree  either  in  Norman,  or  Saxon. 
One  would  rather  exped  in  fuch  a  mix'd  People,  a  mix'd  Lan- 
guage too,  as  ufually  happens  in  fuch  Cafes.  As  to  France  in 
particular,  at  That  Time,  Mr.  Wharton  has  plainly  fhewn  that 
the  Language  there  fpoken  was  very  widely  different  from  the 
Teutonick,  or  Gcrma-n. 

The  Concordate  between  the  Two  Brothers  Lewis  and  Charles, 
at  Strasburgh,  puts  the  matter  out  of  Difpute  :  Where  one  ex- 
prefs'd  Himfelf  in  the  Teutonick,  the  other  in  the  Language  then 
current  in  Fra-ncc-,  called  Romanenfis,  or  Rufiica  Ro-majva,  corrupt 
Roman,  or  Latin-^  nearer  to  the  Latin  than  to  the  German,  but 
a  confufed  mixture  of  Both.  Such  was  the  Language  then  vul- 
garly fpoken  in  France,  as  appears  from  the  Specimen  of  it 
given  by  Wharton  from  Nithardus.  And  this  I  prefumc  is  the 
Language  into  which  our  Creed  was  interpreted  in  Hincmars 
Time  5  for  which  rcafon  I  have  fet  the  French  Verfions  fird. 
If  any  one  contend  that  the  Teutonick  prevailed  then  in  the /)/- 
ocefs  of  Rheims,  tho'  not  in  the  other  parts  of  Gaulmo\:c  remote 
from  Germany,  I  fhall  not  thmk  it  of  moment  to  difpute  the 
point,  fincc  it  is  not  material  to  our  prcfent  purpofc. 

As  to  the  French  Verfions,  properly  fo  called,  ivritten  (land- 
ing Verfions,  1  have  faid,  that  none  of  them  reach  higher  than 

a  Vfftr.  Hiftor.  Dogmat.  p.  in. 

b  Vid  Wharton.  Au6lar.  Hiftor.  Dogmat.  p.  J44.. 

the 


rk    ATHAKASJAN    CREED.  6y 

the  Xlth  Century.  Montfmcon  gives  us  one,  tho'  imperfed, 
600  years  old  j'  that  is,  of  the  Xlth  Century,  and  very  near 
the  end  of  it,  about  1 09  8,  fix  hundred  years  before  the  Time  of  his 
writing.  And  this  is  the  oldeft  that  I  have  any  where  found 
mention'd.  Next  to  which,  perhaps  we  may  reckon  That  in 
Trinity  College  in  Cambridge  \  I  mean  the  interlinear  Verfion 
whicli  Mr.  Wa-aley°  calls  Normanno-Gallican,  about  580  years 
old.  There  is  one  in  the  Cottort  Library  {Nero.  C.  4.)  above 
500  years  old,  according  to  Mr.  Wharton. "^  Montfaucon  gives 
us  Another  above  400  years  old.'^  But  it  is  needlefs,  and  foreign 
to  my  purpofe  to  number  up  all  theVerfions:  T\\Q.firJi  in  its 
kind  is  what  will  be  chiefly  ferviceable  to  our  following  In- 
quiries. 

German  Versions. 

As  to  -written  and  (landing  Verfions,  the  Cermim,  io  far  as  S70 
we  find  any  Records,  ought  to  have  the  firfi:  place.  There  is 
in  the  Emperor's  Library  at  ViennpL,'^  3.  German j  or  Temomck^ 
Verfion  of  This  Creed  made  by  OtfriduSy  Monk  of  Weiffenberg 
in  the  IXth  Century  :  The  Manufcript,  as  Lambecius  afliires  us, 
is  coeval  with  the  Author.  There  have  been  feveral  later  Ger- 
man Verfions,  a  brief  account  of  which  may  be  feen  in  Lam- 
hecius^  TentzeliuSy^  and  Le  Long  -^  but  more  particularly  in  Tent- 
zelim.  It  is  fufficient  to  my  purpofe  to  have  taken  notice  of 
the  frjij  and  mofl:  confiderable  in  its  kind. 

V  Anglo-S^axon  Versions. 

There  have  been  Anglo-Saxon  Verfions  of  this  Creed  as  ear-  p,Q 
ly  as  the  Time  of  K.  Athelfian  5  as  appears    from  the  Manu- 

a  Mantfaucon.  Diarrib.  p.  72.1.  727.  733. 

b  Wanleii  Catal.  MSS.  Septentr.  p.  168. 

c  IVharion.  Au(ftar.  Hiftor.  Dogmat.  p,  390. 

d  Monrf.  Diatr.  p.  712. 

e  Lambec.  Catal.  Biblioth.   Vindobon.  I.  2.  p.  460.  760. 

i  Lambtc.  Catal.  L.  2.  p.  763. 

g  Tentz.eL  Judic.  Erudit.  Praef,  &  p.  zi6. 

h  Le  Long.  Biblioth.  Bibljc.  Vol.  i.  p.  376. 

I  2  fcript 


^8  ANTIENT  VERSIONS  of 

fcript  of  the  Royal  Library  with  an  mterlinear  Vcrfion,  noted 
above  J  and  whicli  I  place  in  930.     The   Lamhcth  Manufcript 
of  957  has    alfo   an  interlinear    Saxon   Verfion.     Both  which 
Manufcripts  confirm  the  Account  which  our  Learned  Dr.  7^^//£';2 
<;ives  of  an    Anglo-Saxon    Copy  of  this    Creed   which  He  has 
printed  from   a  Manufcript  of  the   Church   of  Salisbury.     He 
judges  the  Ferfion  it  felf  to  have  been  made  about  the  middle 
of  the  Xth  Century,  or   about  950;  which  fuirs  exaftly  with 
the  Age  of  the    Manufcripts  before   mention'd.     Only ,    This 
we  may  exped,  that  the  Saxon  Copies  of  thofe  Manufcripts  (if 
They  happen  to  contain  the  fame  Ferfion)  will  be  found  much 
more  correct  than  the  Sarum    Copy,  being  written  at    a  Time 
when  the  Saxon  Language  was  lefs  corrupted,  and  retain'd  more 
of  its  primitive  purity  5  whereas  the  Sarum  Copy  was  written,* 
as    Dr.   Wot  ton  conjectures,   after  both  Danes  and  Normans  had 
much  alter'd  the  Language.     I  before   obferved  that  the  Title 
in    Dr.   Wottons  Copy    is  Hymnus  Athanafii,  as   in    St.    James  ^ 
Copy:  And  there  is  fomcthing  farther  worth  the  noting,  which 
is   the  Rubrick    following  the   Title,  direding    the    Creed  to 
be  fung  alternately^  which  confirms  the  Account  given  hy  Abbo 
Floriacenfis  of  the  cuftom  of  the  Galilean  and  Englipj  Churches 
in  that  Age.     But  to   pixDceed  j  From  the  Time  wc  have  had 
any  Verfion   of  this  Creed    into  our   Country-Language ,    wc 
may  reafonably  conclude  that  fuch  Vcrfions  have  varied,  by  little 
and  little,  in  every  Age,  in  proportion  to  the  gradual  Altera- 
tion in  our  Language  5  till  at  length  the  Verfion  became  fuch  as 
it  (lands  at  This  Day.  Such  as  are  defirous  of  having  a  Specimen 
of  the  Creed  in  very  old  Engllflj  verfe,  may  find  one  in  Dr.  Hicks  s 

a  Vcrfioncm  iftam  circiter  medium  Dff/w/ S<^«/»  efTe  fa£tam  ipfius  Sermonis  cum  pi> 
ritate  (ubi  non  hallucinatur  Intcrpres)  conjunfta  proprietas  cft'erdir.  Receniim  vcro  dc- 
fcriptam  fuifle,  fub  Nortmannorum  in  Angliam  Advcntum,  non  tantum  Librani  Lin- 
guae SaxonicA  haud  gnari  rcccntior  manus  in  qua  exaratur,  (od  pravum  ilhid  Anglo  Da^ 
nicum,  vcl  forftta  Anglo  Nortmanmcum,icn\>zi\d\  genus  d^mon^v^t.Wotton.  Nor  ad  Brevero 
Confpeft.  Opcris  Hukefiani.  p.  75-. 

b  Hymnus  Athanafii,  Je  Fide  Trinitatis. 

*Qucm  Tu  concelebrans,  difcutientcr  intcllege.  Incipit  de  Fide. 

On  vhich  Dr.  Wotton  makes  this  Note. 

*  Ita  M^.  Hoc  eft,  qucm  Tu   anhfhon,itim,  vcl  altermtim   pfallcns,  animo    percipe. 

p.-  7.7- 

Thefau^ 


rhe  ATHAUASJAN  CREED.  6p 

Thefaums  ;*  And  They  may  fee  a  good  part  of  a  Trofe-Verfion  in 
old  Engli^  (tho'  confiderably  later  than  the  other)  in  Wkkliff\ 
Comment.  But  thefe  and  the  like  Obfervations  are  out  of  the 
compafs  of  my  Deitgn,  and  fo  I  pafs  on. 

Greek  Versions. 

I  have  before  intimated  that  this  Creed  was  Originally  Ldtin^. 
and  therefore  the  Greek  Copies  can  be  no  more  than  Verfions, 
And  They  appear  to  be  very  Ute  alfo,  in  comparilbn  to  the 
former.  However,  fuice  the  Greek  is  one  of  the  learned  Lan-  ' 
guages,  fince  the  Creed  has  been  afcribcd  to  a  Greek  Author, 
and  has  been  alfo  fuppofed  by  Many  to  have  been  written  in 
Greek  j  it  will  therefore  be  proper  to  give  as  particular  and  as 
diftind  Account  as  is  poflible  of  the  Greek  Verfion,  or  Ver- 
fions. Our  Inquiries  here  will  lie  within  a  littl^  compafs : 
For  the  Greek  Copies  are  neither  rminy,  nor  antient.  Montfau- 
con^  a  very  diligent  Searcher  into  thefe  matters,  frankly  pro- 
fefles  that  He  had  never  feen  any  Greek  Copy  of  this  Creed  fo 
old  as  3  oo  years ;  nor  ever  heard  of  any  that  was  antient!!'  He 
fcruples  not  to  fay  farther,  that  there  had  not  been  yet  feen 
any  Greek  Record,  of  certma  and  undoubted  credit,  whereby  to 
prove  that  This  Creed  had  been  known  to  the  Greek  Church 
for  more  than  500  years  upwards.'^  He  fpeaks  only  of  Greek 
Records:  As  to  Latin  ones  they  afford  Sufficient  proof  that 
This  Creed  was  pleaded  againft  the  Cr^^/'i  in  the  Dilpute,  about 
the  ProceJJio?h  in  the  8th  or  9th  Century  at  lateft,  and  therefore 
mt^  have  been  in  fome  i^ieadire  known  to  them.  The  Greeks 
and  Latins  had  fome  Difpute  on  that  Head  in  the  Synod  of 
Gent  illy,  not  far  from  Paris,  in  the  year  767,  under   K.  Pepin, 

a  Hkkef:  Thefaur.  Linguar.  Septentr.  p.  352. 

b  Sane  nuiium  vidimus  Grscum  hujus  Symbol!  Godicem  qui  trecentorttm  fif  annorum; 
nee  antiijHum  alium  a  quopiam  vifum  fuifle  novinu's.  Montfauc.  Diatrih.  p.  7^7- 

c  Adjicere  non  pigcat  non  vifum  ha£tenus  fuifle  Gncorum  quodpiam  monurnentam 
(certum  fcilicet  ac  indubitatum^^-quo  ab  annis  plus  quingentis  notum  Ecclefi^  Crxcifviffc 
Symbolum,  ^iikunq<^e,  poi^l^  comprobari.  Montf.  ibid.  p.  711. 

To  the  fame  purpofe /peaks  ComheRs  of  this  Greet!. 

Vix  enim  extat  praterquam  in  recentiorum  Colleflaneis,  librifque  eorum  Polcmicis, 
quibus  ipfum  vel  impugnant,  vel  etiam  defendunt:  fdque  volimt  illi  qui  aiunt  non  hiiberi 
inGncorum  libr'u;  non  enim  fie  ftupidi  videntur  ut  negent  GrAce  haberf.  Combef.  Not., 
ad  Mm>  Calec.  p   i^J. 

But 


yo  ANTIENT  VERSIONS  of 

But  perhaps  this  Creed  was  not  pleaded  at  That  Time  :  At  lead 
it  docs  not  appear  that  it  was. 

It  cannot  be  doubted  bat  that  the  Greeks  had  heard  fomething 
of  This  Creed  troni  the  LAt'ms^  as  early  as    the   Days  of  Ra- 
tKi^m J     and  JEneiis    Parifie^fis -^    that  is  above    850    years  ago, 
Avhcn  the  Dilputc  about  the  Vroceljlon  between  the  Greeks  and 
Latins  was  on  Foot :  This  the  Teftimonies  above  cited  plainly 
fhew.  But  This  is  not  enough  to  prove  that  the  Greek  Church 
had  yet  any  value  for  This   Creed,  or  that  there  was  then  ex- 
tant any  Greek  Copy  of  it. 
1200       NicoUm  HjdruntirmSy  cited  above,  who  flourifh'd  under  Alex- 
ius IV,  Emperor  of  the  Eaft,  and  Pope  Innocent  the  Third,  that 
is,  in  round  numbers  about   1 200,  He  gives  us  the  firft  notice 
of  This  Creed  being  extant  in  Greek  in  his  Time.    He  obferves, 
that  the  Article  of  the  ProceJJion  from  the  Son  was  not  in  the 
Greek  Copy  of  This  Creed,  as  neither  in  the  Nicene,  blaming 
the  Lfitins^     as  I  apprehend,    for   interpolating    Both.     Which 
was  a  juft  cenfure  with  rcfped  to  the   Nicene  Creed,  but  not 
with  refped  to  the  Atha?mfian,  which  certainly  never  wanted 
That  Article  j    as  is  plain  from    the  Agreement  of  the  Latin 
Copies,  and  the  carlieft  of  them,    thofe  of  a  Thoufand  years 
Dare :  which  I  remark  by  the  way.  As  to  our  prefent  purpole. 
This  is  certain  that,  fome    Time  before   This   Nicolaus   of  0- 
tranto  wrote,  the  Creed  had  been  tranflated  imo  Greek,  by  a 
Greek,  or  at  leafi:  by  one  that  took  part  with  the  Greeks  in  the 
Qiieftion  about  the  Procellion.     It  can  hardly  be  imagined  that 
NicoUtis  had  tranflated  it  Himfelf,  and  that  He  appealed  to  his 
o-ivn   Verfion.     There    muft   have   been  a   Verfion    before  un- 
doubtedly:  And  one  can  fcarce  fuppofe  lefs  than   50,  or   100 
years  before,  fince  both  the  Tirne  and  Author  of  it  were  for- 
gotten, and  This  Greek  Verfion  pafs'd  with    NicoUus  for  Atha- 
najiuss  Original.     Manuel  Caleca^  who  wrote   about  the  Year 

a  Teflantur  autem  hanc  ipfam  Fidei  Confeflionem  Sanfti  viri  (Athanafti)  efle,  atque 
id  didlum  ira  fe  habere,  qui  contra  Latinos  multo  ante  fcripfcrunri  quam  fibi  ut  adver- 
fam  truftra  labefaftare  nituntur.  Atque,  ut  intelligi  datur,  tunc  quidem  adhuc  fervaba- 
tur;  poJimoJum  vero  pertinaciorct  ad  contradicendum  fafti,  omnino  auferre  voluerunt.* 
ctfi  modo  jiihilominus  curiole  inquirentibus  raro,  licet  in  vetuftiflimis  Codicibus,  ita  ha> 
bere  invcnitur.     Mun.  Calec.  contr.  Grid,  a.  B.  PP.   Tom.  XXVI.  p.  414. 

1360, 


The   ATUANASIAN    CREED.  71 

I  ?  60,  intimates  that  there  had  been  Greek  Copies  long  before 
his  Time,  and  that  the  moft  antient  of  all  had  the  Article  of 
the  Proceflion  from  fhe  Son-^  and  that  the  older  Greeks  who 
wrote  againft  the  L^itim  did  not  pretend  to  ftrike  out  That  Ar- 
ticle, as  thofe  did  that  came  after.  Could  we  depend  upon 
this  Report,  we  might  then  be  certain  that  the  Greek  Copies  of 
the  Time  of  NicoUus  Hydruntinus,  were  late  in  Comparifon,  and 
that  there  had  been  other  Greek  Copies  much  more  antient. 
But  This  I  leave  to  the  confideration  of  the  Learned.  Howe- 
ver this  fad  be,  one  thing  is  certain,  that  the  oldeft  Greek 
Copy  could  be  only  a  Verfion^  whether  fooner  or  later. 

As  to  Greek  Copies  now  extant  in  manufcri^t^  They  are  but 
few,  and  modern.  I  may  here  give  a  Ihort  Account  of  them, 
of  as  many  as  I  have  hitherto  found  mentioned  in  Books,  or 
Catalogues  of  Manufcripts. 

I.  There  is  one  in  the  Emperor's  Library  at  Viennti,  faid  to 
be  in  p^per,  mztient,  and  oi  good  Vdue"".  Thefe  words  are  too 
general  to  fix  any  certain  Date  upon  :  One  may  guefs  from  the 
Taper,  that  the  Manufcript  is  not  very  antient ;  fince  Tiiper  came 
not  into  frequent,  or  common  ufe  before  the  Xlllth  Century.  But 
not  to  infill  upon  That,  one  may  judge  from  what  is  written 
in  the  fame  Volume,  and,  I  fuppofe,  in  the  fame  Hand  (for 
Nefjelim  makes  no  DiftindionJ  that  the  Copy  of  the  Creed  is 
not  earlier  than  the  middle  of  the  XlVth  Century.  Maximus 
VUnudes  makes  a  part  of  the  Manufcript :  He  flourifh'd  about 
the  year  1340. 

2^  There  is  Another  Greek  Manufcript  of  this  Creed  in  the 
fame  Library,  a  pfiper  one  too,  and  faid  to  be  pretty  d/itient, 
by  NeJJelmSj  who   gives  account  of  it'',     from   the  mention: 

i  CCXIV.  Codex  MS.  Theologicus  Grxcus  eft  Chartaceus,  mtiqtiHi,  &  bo7iA  tiou  \a 
4to.  Conftatque  foliis  541. 

Continentur  co  Hzc. 

Imo  &c. 

2do  &  quidem  a  Fol.  77,  ad  Fol.  79.  S.  Athanafii  Archiepircopi;Al;x-ai]drinl  .^7«^o//^« 
Fidei,  cujus  Titulus  8c  principiunr  T»  dyas  'Ajztyxrn'ii  t«  fj!,i}.cc'^^.  "O-m  '/'  ccv  ,'iii^>i'T^ 
mi^icq,  istSi  •mi'm^'i  y^^vt  x-o^n't*  Tn^i  ^c.  NefTel.  Catal    p.    344.   Vol.  !• 

b  CXCinus  Codex  MS.— ——eft  Chartacem,  med'wcriter  antiquus,  8c  ion  a  not  a,  in 
4to.  Conftatque  nunc  Foliis  332,  &  ad  Johmnem  SamhtiCMm  dim  pertinuir.  Continentur 
eo  Haec.  I  prime  0f. 

therein 


ji  ANTIENT     VERSIONS     of 

therein  made  of  the  Creed's  being  prefented  to  Pope  Julius, 
I  fhould  be  apt  to  conclude  that  the  Manufcript  is  not  earUcr, 
nor  copied  from  any  carHer  than  Afa»uel  Caleca's  Time,  or 
the  XlVtli  Century  :  But  there  are  other  Marks,  particularly 
fome  Pieces  of  Julianm  Cardindis^  which  demonftrate  that  the 
Manufcript  cannot  be  much  older  than  the  middle  of  the 
XVth  Century. 

3 .  Felchman  had  a  manufcript  Copy  of  This  Creed  in  Greek, 
without  any  Title  to  it,  or  any  Author  named '.  I  can  fay  no- 
thing to  the  Age  of  it,  for  want  of  further  Particulars. 

4.  Felckman  had  Another  Manufcript  out  of  the  Palatine  Li- 
brary, (which  Library  is  fince  transfer'd  to  the  Fatican)  with  a 
Title  to  it,  (Tii(/.Co\ov  tb  kyls  ' AfoLVoLTiy,  St.  Athanafiuss  Creed  ^. 
The  Title  alone  is  a  iufficient  Argument  of  it's  being  modern^  to 
any  that  confider  what  were  the  more  ufual  and  antient  Titles, 
rcprefented  above.  It  is  to  be  noted  that  Thofe  Two  manu- 
fcript Copies  arc  fo  nearly  the  fame,  that  They  make  but  one 
Copy  in  Print,  which  has  been  inferred  in  all  the  Editions  of 
Athanafiiiss  Works  after  Felckm/iri's,  as  well  as  in  his,  and  makes 
the  fifth  in  Gundlingius,^  who  gives  us  fix  Greek  Copies  of  this 
Creed.  It  is  obfervable,  that  This  Copy  owns  not  the  Pro- 
ccflion  from  the  Son :  From  whence  we  may  infer  that  it  was 
not  made  by  the  Latins,  or  however  not  by  any  who  wete  not 
Priends  to  the  Greeks. 

5.  Laz^arus  Baifius's  Copy  ^j  which  He  had  from  Venice,  in 

180  Et  quidem  a  fol.  305.  ad  fol.  504,  S.  ^thanafihnAgni,  Archicpifcopi  Alcxandrini, 
ConfeJJio  Catholica  FiJei,ad  S.J-ultum  Pontificem  Ronianum;  cujus  &  Ticulus  &  I'rincipium 

l»>,«ov  Iloirmv    Vitj/yt!,.  Tm    ')t>,cvn  ezuji^vuf   Scc.   Kcjfel.  Catal.  Vol.    I.  p.  281- 

a  Extat  Hog  Symbolum  in  noftro  Codice  z  anonymo,  fed  abfquc  Titulo  2c  nomine 
Autorisi  iinde  &  fie  editum.     Felckmai.  ^i].  Aihanaf.   Commelin-  p- 83 

Incipit ;   «  TH  ^Ao(  ai-Pjvtiaji  (zs^  'Tnlvmv  xf>>  c^-^rtS  r^v  ^^oAj*>i»  kj^t^jw^  th^v.  Sec. 

b  Invcnimus  id  ipfuni  etiam  poll  in  CoJicc  quodam  ^.ihtim  Bibl:othecs,  cxprefsc  A- 
thanafio  infcriptum  (licet  id  recentiorcs  Grsuci  nolinr,  ut  viderc  eft  ex  epiftola  Meletii  Con- 
ftantinopolitani  Patriarchx  ad  Douzam  )  ex  quo  etiam  difcrepantias  quaidam  notabimus. 

Incipit}  1/775  S^iAH  ffzit'y>iyaf,  <a^  TmiTut  ^ffiK'  «fv  <»«*  th*  KU%>UKti»  x^tho-jj  Tn^r.  gcc. 
Felckman.  Hi  J, 

c  Gundlmgii  not.  ad  Eujlratii  &  p.  76- 

d   Titulus   E>^6i<ni  ow-eAep^a?  Tr.i  xx^oXikki;  Ttiftuc,  nu  fjutj^Xn'Ajx^ur.is  TncTQ/ieif^if 'AMlcif- 

Incipit. '0?i5  uf  (it'JXiKTxj  (TM^T'^i  Cvt?  Tmrrc-y  ^c>i  Kfxjx^t  njf  x(«doA«KV  5T7?ji'. 

the 


The  ATHAN^SI^N  CREED.  7^ 

the  Time  of  frmcis  1.  in  the  year  153 3»  was  publifhed  by 
Genebmrd,  An.  1569.  This  Copy,  probably,  was  contrived  by 
a  Latin  ("having  the  Proceilion  from  the  So?z  in  it)  or  at  leaft 
by  fome  honeji  Greek  who  would  not  vary  from  the  Origind, 
I  conclude  this  Greek  Copy  to  be  modern^  from  the  Title  5  for 
a  reafon  before  hinted. 

6.  There  was  Another  manufcript  Copy  *  of  this  Creed, 
which  NicoUus  Bryli?7g  firfl  printed  at  B/^fdy  and  afterwards  //. 
Stephens  in  France ,  in  the  year  1565.  This  alfo  muft,  in  all  pro- 
bability, be  very  modern^  becaufe  of  aufiQo\ov  in  the  Title.  It 
acknowledges  the  Proceflion  from  the  Son,  conformable  to  the 
Original. 

7.  In  the  i?oj^/ Library  at  Paris.  fNumb.  2  502,)  there  is  ano- 
ther manufcript  Greek  Copy  of  this  Creed,^  written  in  the  year 
1562.  publifhed  by  Genebrard  1569,  and  faid  by  Him  to  belong 
to  the  Church  of  Conjiantinople.  This  was  taken  from  an  older 
Manufcript,  but  how  much  older  cannot  certainly  be  known  ^ 
One  may  imagine  from  the  Title ^,  and  Beginni?ig  of  it,  that  the 
Form  is  the  fame  with  one  of  thofe  in  the  Emperors  Library, 
and  that  they  were  copied  from  each  other,  or  Both  from  a 
Third  Copy.  This  Manufcript  acknowledges  the  Proceflion 
from  the  Son.  I  had  underftood,  from  A^ontfaucons  general  way 
of  Exprellion,  that  Genebrard  had  publifh'd  his  Copy  from  this 
very  Manufcript  of  the  Royal  Library,  Num.  2502.     But  obfer- 

a  Titulus :  Sw/*foAo»  t5  «><»  'AJu.hu.t.h. 

Incipit:  "o??;  /SaAsra^  t^fiijKi/  8cc. 

b  ^e  graecis  autem  Codicibus  pauca  fuppetunt  dicenda,  cum  unum  tartum  nobis  in- 
fpicere  licucrit,  fcil..  Reg.  2/ci.  In  quo  extat  Symbolum  fuperiore  fsculo  cxaratum. 
Montf.  Diatrib.  p.  722. 

Secunda,  quam  edimus  formula,  jam  dim  public!  juris  fafta  per  Genebrardum  Anno 
ij"69,  quam  ait  ille  efTe  Ecclefiae  Conftantinopolitanae,  extat  in  Regie  Codice  num.  2'5oi, 
olim  ex  Bibliotheca  Johannis  Huralti  Boiftallerii  a  Carolo  IX.  Venetias  Legati.  in  quo  Co- 
dice  haec  leguntur,  ante  Dialogum  S.  Athanafii  cum  Ario  >tranfcnptus  ^-  recognifus 
liber  Hie  cfi,  ex  'vetuflifptno  exemplars  Cretico;  Venetiis  An.  15-62.  impenfst  fa^^  aureorum 
X.  Zachjtrias  Sacerdos  tranfcripfu'iQf  habitit.   Montf.  Diatrib.  p.  727. 

c  Incertum  autem  utrum  ex  illo  quod  memorat  VetufiiJ]:mo  Exemplari,  Syrmhohm  etiara 
fit  mutuatiis ;  Codex  qwippe  arrpla;  molis  multa  8c  varia  compleftitur,  qua:  dubitare  licet 
ex  unone  Codice  exfcripta  fuerint,  an  ex  Compluribus.  Monif.  ibid. 

d  Titulus.  TS  cv  dyfoii  UxTfii;  v,[jjuv  'Ajuvxaia  t»  [Af^Xev  oy^Xo'^ioi  t??  xxJvMkTu  •m^iuc, 
>]»  ?^x£  "JT^c,    'I»A(e»    UctTmv  'Paw/jc. 

Incipit.  T«  ^'Aovti  3Zc'^v«/,   &c. 

K  vino; 


74  ANTIENT     VERSIONS   of 

ving  that  Genebrard's  wants  fomc  words  (ki^oi  o  7raT-/)f,  ai'^05  0 
'^:i^  oti'iloy  TO  'TtrZuua  To  a.'}iov)  which  Montfaucon\  Copy  has,  I 
conchidc  that  He  meant  only  the  jame  Jrorm,  as  to  Matter  and 
Words,  tor  the  nioft  part,  not  the  fame  Manulcript. 

8.  There  is  Another  manufcript  Greek  Vcrllon,  or  rather 
Paraplirafe  of  this  CreeJ,  havini^  leveral  hiterpolations,  pubhih'd 
by  Bilhop  V^kt  A.  1647,  from  a  Copy  fcnt  Him  by  Patrick 
Toung.  It  has  been  often  fuice  printed :  m  the  Gouncth,  in  Gund- 
Jmg,  and  in  Montfaucon, 

It  leaves  out  the  Article  of  Procedlon   from  the  Son  5  from 
whence  we  may    judge  that  it  was  compofed   by  a  Greeks  or 
Grecizins;  Latin.  The  Title  mfmuates  that  the  Creed  was  drawn 
up   in  the  Nicene  Council  * :  an  opinion   entertain'd  by  Johan, 
Cyparifjiota^    about  the   year   1360,  as  obferved  above.     When 
Ihis  Story,  or  Fidion  firft  came  in,   I  cannot   pretend   to  de- 
termine.    Bi(hop  U/lb^/'  fpeaks  of  a  ijery  antient  M^nuCcnpt,  part- 
ly in  Irifh,  and  partly  in  Latin^  which  hints  at  the  iame Thing: 
But  He   fixes   no   Date  to    the    Manufcript ;     the  words,    ^ery 
antienty  are  too  general   to  give  Satisfaction  in   it.     The  Creed 
is  there  faid  to  have  been  compofed  in  the  Niceyie  Council  by 
Eufebius,  and  VionyJJuSy  and  2.Third  Ich  Namelefs^,  as  not  being 
known.     The  Author  of  that  Book  of  Hynms  muft  have  been 
very  Ignorant,  not   to  know  AthanafmSj  who  was  undoubted- 
ly   the  Third  Man,   and  for   whofe  lake    (to    account  for  the 
Creed's  being  wrote   in  Latiri)  the  whole  Story  feems  to  ha\c 
been  contrived.     By  Eufebius  muft  have  been  intended  Eujebius 
of  Verceil  in  Picdmontj  a  Latin,  and  a  great  Friend  and  Intimate 
of  Athanafius :  By    Diunjfius    undoubtedly     is   meant    Bionyfius 
Bifhop  of  A^ilan  of  the  lame  Time,  and  of  the  fame  Principles, 
and   well  acquainted    with  Eufebius^.     Had  the  Contrivers  of 

a  *£»  "^  d^eci  i  d'xevjLt/fyty.'iii  r??  ci  Nuca-oi,  <zsct  Tn^ieoi;  kxtu  avtivf/jixn,  >C  Tntie,  /i?  ttk^HiW) 
rnv  c-'XtiCti  x,Q/KJecyov.  Ujjcr.  dc  Symb.  p.  l6. 

h  In  Hymnorum,  partim  Latino  partim  Hibernico  Sermone  fcriptorum,Codicc  vetuHif- 

^Imo notatum  leperi,  triiim  Epifcoponim  opera,  in  cadem  Kutnn  Synodo  illud  fu- 

jfTe  compofitum,  EHfeiii,  &  Dwnyfii,  (^  nomeu  tertii  (lie  cnim  ibi  Icgitur)  nejcimus, 
Ujfcr.  de  Symb.  prxf. 

c  It  feents  highly  probable,  that  the  -whole  Fable  about  Eufebius,  and  Dionyfius,  was  firji 
ta'tfed  out  tf  a  Pajfage  of  .S/.  Anibrolc,  which  rnight  be  though:  to  hint  fame  fiuh  Thing-  ^^^* 
-seordi  are:  '  i 

the 


Jhe   ATHANASI AN   CREED.  75 

the  Fable  laid  their  Scene  at  Alex^ndrm,  where  Athan^fius  and 
this  EuJehiuSy  with  I'everal  other  Latins^  met  together  in  the  year 
362,  They  had  made  it  the  more  plaufiblc.  But  let  us  return 
to  our  Greek  Copies,  from  which  we  have  a  httle  digrels'd. 

This  is  obfervable  of  the  Greek  Copies  in  general,  that  They 
•differ  very  widely  from  each  other,  and  therefore  cannot  be 
Copies  of  one  and  the  fame  Verfion.  Polfibly,  Three,  or  Four 
of  them  may  be  thrown  into  one,  admitting  however  many 
Furious  Legions :  But  ftili  there  will  be  as  many  remaining,  which 
cannot  be  fo  dealt  with,  but  muft  be  look'd  upon  as  diftind, 
and  different  Verfions.  Such  as  defire  to  fee  all  the  Copies  to- 
gether, may  find  them  in  Gundling,  and  Morttfaucort'  5  Four  at  large, 
the  reft  exhibited'  only  by  Various  Leciions.  I  do  not  know  whe- 
ther the  Manufcripts  of  the  Vtenrm  Library  have  been  colUted 
for  any  oi  xho,  prmted  Editions :  Perhaps  not  5  I  do  not  remem- 
ber that  1  have  met  with  any  mention  of  them,  in  any  of  the 
Editors  of  the  printed  Copies. 

It  may  be  of  ufe  to  let  the  printed  Editions,  after  our  Ac- 
count of  the  Manufcripts,  in  Chronological  order,  as  diftindly 
^s  may  be,  fmce  we  cannot  fix  the  Dates  of  the  manufcript 
Copies. 

I.  TheFirft  printed  Edition  was  by  NicoUus  Bryling,"  a  Printer  1540 
of  B^fiL  My  Authors  have  been  deficient  in  not  fetting  down 
the  Date  of  it.  I  have  endeavor'd  to  fix  the  year,  but  have  not 
yet  been  fo  happy  as  to  come  to  a  certainty  in  it.  Where- 
•fore,  I  hope,  my  Reader  will  excufe  it,  if,  rather  than  fet  no 
yc^r  at  all,  I  chule  one  x^hich  I  know  cannot  be  very  much 
over,  or  under,  becaufe  of  other  Pieces  printed  by  the  fame 
Bryling  about  That  Time.  Fabricius  mentions  Michael  Meander 
as  Editor  of  the  fame  Copy  after  Bryling,  and  before  Stephens: 

Itaque  ut  Eufebius  Sanclus  prior  levavit  VexUlum  Confejjionis,  ita  Bmtus  Dionyllus  in 
txilii  locis,  priori  Manynhus  Tnulo  viiam  exhalavit.  Ambrof.  ad  VercelUnf.  Fp.  63.  p. 
1039. 

a  Quod  olim  evulgavit  Bafiles  Nicolaus  Bryling;  dcinde  in  Gallia  An.  i^6f.  Henricus 
Stephanui.  Genebrard.   in  Symb.  Athanaf.  p.   8. 

Quam  poft  Nie.  Brylmgium,  &  Mich,  Neandrum^  H.  Stephanus  in  lucem  edidit.  Fahric, 
Bibl.  Gric.  Vol.  V.  p.  3,5. 

K  2  But 


7<;  ANTIENT    VERSIONS    of 

But  what  year,  is  not  laid.  Tentzelius  mentions  a  Third ^^  na- 
mely Sebajiian  Lepufculus,  whofc  Edition  was  in  1559  ;  and  ^z^- 
fhens\  in  1565.  1  have  not  fcen  Lepufculns's,  Copy  :  But  I  can 
make  no  doubt  of  it's  being  the  fame  ''  with  Brjl'mg^ :  which 
has  been  called  the  Vulg^ite,  or  Common  Vcrfion. 

^^^9  2.  The  Second />r/>/r^^  Copy  was  taken  from  the  Manufcript 
of  Lazarus  Bai-ffius,  which  He  received  from  Dionyfim  '-■,  a  Greek, 
in  the  year  1533,  as  before  hinted.  This  was  lirfl:  printed  by 
Cenehrard  in  the  year  1 5  69^  ai2;ain  in  1 5  8  5,  and  oftcntuncs  fince. 
This  Copy  is  fometimcs  called  the  'Dionyjian  Copy  ;  and  it  is 
obferved  by  Gundl'mg  to  differ  from  the  firft  Copy  but  in  fenjen 
Places  5  and  therefore  thefc  Two  have  been  commonly  thrown 
into  one,  by  all  the  Editors  of  Both. 

1569  3.  The  T/;/>^  Copy  was  alio  firft  prmted  by  Genebrard,  at  the 
fame  Time  with  the  other.  It  has  gone  under  the  Name  of 
the  Cofifi amino folit an  Copy,  becaufe  Genebrard  fuppofed  it  to 
have  been  in  ulc  at  Conflantinople^.  It  differs  conflderably  from 
Both  the  other,  and  is  never  thrown  into  one  with  them,  but 
kept  diftind  by  it  felf 

1600  4.  The  Fourth  is  the  Commeli?ie,  or  Felckmans  Copy,  from  the 
Palatine  Manufcripts,  often  reprinted  with  Atha-najiuss  Works. 
This  alfo  ftands  by  it  felf,  as  a  diftind  Verfion. 

e647       5.  The  Fifth  was   firft  publiili'd  by  Ujherj  in  the  year  1647. 

a  Sebajlian  :  Lepnfculi  Compendium  Jofephi  Gorionidis,  cum  Colleftaneis  quibufda'm. 
"Rafil.  Iff 9'  Vid.  Tentz.el.  p.  i66. 

b  Nic.  Serarius,  tpho  wrote,  in  the  year  i<)Cfo. /peaking  of  that  firft  Copy  printed  by  ^ryVrngt 
M»d  Stephens,  fays  as  follows, 

Quarum  prima,  "vulgata  dici  potcft,  eo  quod  badenus  ca  fola  hie  apud  nos,  Germanix 
&  Gallta,  typis  evulgata  fucrit.  Nicol.  Serar-  de  Symbol.  Athanaf.  Opufc.  Theolcg.  Tom. 
2.  p-  9.  From  hence  one  rmy  juftly  conclude,  that  Sebaftian'i  Copy, in  iffp.  reas  no  new  one. 
For  there  was  no  Second,  before  Genebrard'j,  publifij'd  in  France,  or  Germany  i  as  we  may 
learn  from  what  Serarius  here  lefiifies. 

c  Hoc  Symbolum  reperi  in  libro  Gracco  MS.  de  ProccfTione  Spiritus  Sanfti,  quern  La- 
z^aro  Baijfjo  Oratori  Regis  Francifci  I.  apud  Venetos,  obtulit  Dionyfim  Grrcus,  Epifcopus 
Ziinenfis  &  Firmienfis  An.  ifBj.  Gensbr.  Comm.  in  Symb.  Athinaf.  p.  8. 

In  manus  meas  pcrvenit  liber  quidam  Graecus,  de  FrocefTionc  Spiritus  Sanfti,  oblatus 
Lazaro  Bayfio  claro  Regis  noftri  francifci  I.  apud  Venetos  Oraton,  anno  Chrifti  if 3 3. 
Quem  manu  fua  cleganrifllme  pinxerat  Huolaus  Scphianus  Patrum  noftrorum  rvo  vir 
valde  do(fTtis.  Cenebr.  ibid.  p.  2. 

d  Supcrius  Symbolum,  Athanafii  verbis  -aliquantuium  immutatis,  Ccnfiantinopolitani  fie 
Grzce  legunt,  8c  recitant-  Cenebr.  ibid.  p.  i4«  . 

This 


The    ATHANASIAU     CREED.  77 

This  differs  extremely  from  all  the  reft,  having,  befides  many 
V^ri^.tions,  and  flight  Infertions,  one  very  large  IntcrpoUtion.  It 
hath  been  often  reprinted  fmce  Uflers  Time. 

6.  The  Sfxth  and  laft  was  firft  publiili'd  by  LMe  and  Cojjkrf-  1671 
in  the  fecond  Tome  of  Comicib.     This  Copy  comes  the  neareft 
to  the  Two  firll:,  and  therefore  is  fometimes  thrown  into  one 
with  them :  But  it  differs  from  Both  in  about  forty  Places,  ac- 
cording to  Gwadlmgs  Computation. 

Thefe  are  all  the  frh:ted  Copies  j  which  are  fometimes  call'd 
lour  and  fometimes  Six:  Four,  becaufe  the  Ftrji^  Second,  and 
Sixth  may  be  tolerably  thrown  into  One ;  Six,  becaufe  They 
may  alfo  be  kept  diftincl,  and  may  be  reckon'd  as  fo  many 
Coftes  at  leaft,  if  not  io  many  feveral  Verfions.  So  much  for 
the  Greek  Verfions  of  our  Creed. 

To  the  Verfions  already  mention'd  may  be  added  the  ScUvo- 
niiin,  of  feveral  Dinlecis,  and,  as  I  conceive,  pretty  antie?7t :  But 
we  have  little  or  no  Account  of  them ;  only,  as  I  Ihall  fnow 
in  the  Sequel,  we  may  be  certain  that  there  have  been  fuch. 
There  are  /m//^w,  Sp.j?zifh,  Irifh,  and  TVe/ch  Verfions  j  bur  whe- 
ther any  that  can  juftly  be  called  antie?it,  I  know  not.  Fu- 
ture fearches  into  Libraries  may  perhaps  produce  farther  Difco- 
veries.  Fahricius  makes  mention  of  an  Hebretv  Verfion  of  late 
date,  and  of  an  Arabick  one  ftill  later  ^:  But  thefe  or  the  like 
modern  Verfions  will  be  of  no  ufe  to  us  in  our  prefent  In- 
quiries. 

a  Hebraice  Verfum  a  Jnho  Mar  cello  Romano  MS.  in  Bibliotheca  Vxt'tcana  memorat  Tm- 
honatus  m'&M.  Latino  Hebraica  p.  149.  Sed  omirto  recentiores  V crdoncs,  ut  Arabicany 
a  Nijfelio  editam  Lugd.  Bat.  1656.  4to,  una  cum  Cantico  Canticor.  Fabric.  Bibl.  Grsc.  V. 
5.  p.  515-. 

Georgius  Nijfelita  Symbolum  Athanafii  Arabico  idiorratc  cum  Cantico  Canticorum  iE- 

tliiopicc  &  Arabice  edito  Ludg.  Bat.  An.  165-6,  conjunxit id  tamea  non  haufit  ex 

Codice  MS,  fed  ipfe  in  Arabicum  Sermonem  tranftulit.  Tentzel.  p.  115. 


CHAP. 


550 


7$  ANTIENT  RECEPTION    of 

C  H  A  P.     VI. 

Of  the  Reception  of  the  AthannHan  Creed  in  the 
Chrijlian  Churches. 

FROM  the  Materials  here  laid  down,  \vc  may  now  be  able 
to  determine  Ibmcthinii;  about  rhc  Reception  of  the  Creed, 
clpccially  in  the  TitJIem  Lhrnohcs -^  among  which  the  Churchc? 
oi  FrmicCy  ox  G aid,  ought  undoubtedly  to  be  named  firft. 

France,    or  G  a  ul. 

This  Creed  obtain'd  in  France  in  the  Time  of  Hincmar,  or 
^  Yy  about  850,  without  all  difpute.  \Vc  may  advance  higher  up 
to  772  :  For  it  was  then  in  Charles  the  Great's  Plalter,  among 
the  Hymns  of  the  Church.  The  Cotton  manuicript  Pfalter,  with 
this  Creed  in  it,  will  carry  us  up  to  703  :  And  the  Canon  of 
the  Council  of  Autun  to  670 ;  at  which  Time  the  Galilean 
Clergy,  at  leafl  of  the  Dlocefs  of  Autitn,  in  the  Province  of 
Lyons^  were  obliged  to  recite  this  Creed  together  with  the 
Apofiles ,  under  pain  of  Epifcopal  Cenjure.  Which  ihows 
of  how_great  Value  and  Efleem  the  Creed  was  at  that  Time, 
and  affords  a  flrong  Prefumption  (as  J^efnel,  and  Pagi  *  well 
argue  in  the  Cafe)  that  it  had  been  in  ule  there  long  before. 
There  will  be  fome  doubt,  as  1  intimated  above,  about  the 
fuppofed  Canon  of  the  Council  of  Autun  j  which  will  in  feme 
meafure  abate  the  force  of  our  Evidence,  and  of  the  Argument 
built  upon  it.  But  as  it  is  certain  from  other  Evidence,  that 
This  Creed  was  receiv'd  in  the  Galilean  Churches  as  high  as 
772,  or  703  5  So  it  muft  be  own'd  that  This  very  much  con- 
firms the  Suppofition  of  the  Council  of  Autun:  And  the  con- 

a  Dubium  non  eft  quin  rrultis  anre  Synodum  uhm  Anpijlodunenfem  annis  compofitum 
cfTct,  &  jam  olim  per  toram  Ecclefiam  celebrc  evafifret :  Nunquani  enim  SapientifTimi  Prx- 
fules  id  commirifTont,  ut  iftam  Fidei  Fonnulam  omnium  Ordinum  Clericis  ampleftendam, 
&  tTtprehentlbiltter,  ut  aiunt,  rcccnicndam,  Synodali  Bdi(flo  fub  conJemnationis  ptna  praeci- 
pcrcnt ;  imo  &  illam  c  rcgione  rum  Symbolo  Jipoflohco  ponerenr,  niii  jam  longo  ufu  recepta, 
approlata.  8c  inter  gcrmanns  Magni  ^  hanafii  L.ucubnrioncs  numerata  fuifletj  quod  nili 
port  pluTium  annoruni  Senem   fieri  v.x  potuit    ^uefne!.  Dil".  XlV.  p.  7^1. 

Quarc  jam  ante  centum  fere  Annis  opOs  illud  Athanafio  attributum  fuerat.  Pagi  Critic, 
in  Baron.  Vol.  I.  p.  441.  >. 

cutting 


The  ATHAN ASIAN  CREED.  j^ 

curring  Circumftanccs  give  very  great  Light  and  Strength  to 
each  other.  But  what  mod  of  all  confirms  the  foregoing  Evi- 
dence, and  the  reafoning  upon  it,  is,  that  Vcnantius  Fortund^tHS^ 
a  full  hundred  years  before  the  Council  o^  Auttm,  had  met  with 
this  Creed  in  the  Gallican  Parts,  and  found  it  then  to  be  in 
fuch  Efteem  as  to  deferve  to  be  commented  upon,  like  the  Lorcts- 
Prayer,  and  Apofile's-Creed :  Accordingly  He  wrote  Comments 
upon  it,  as  well  as  upon  the  other.  This  wonderfully  con- 
firms the  reafoning  of  ^efnel,  and  Pagiy  that  this  Creed  muft 
have  been  in  ufe  there  near  a  hundred  years  before  the  Council 
o{  Autun,  that  is,  as  high  as  570,  about  which  Time  Forttmatm 
flourilhed,  and  wrote.  And  confiderins;  that  this  Creed  muft 
have  been  for  fome  Time  growing  into  repute,  before  it  could 
be  thought  worthy  to  have  fuch  Honour  paid  it,  along  with 
the  Lord's-Prayer  and  Apojile's-Creed-^  I  may  perhaps  be  allowed 
to  fet  the  Time  of  it's  Reception,  in  the  Gdlican  Churches,  fome 
years  higher  :  Reception  of  it,  I  mean,  as  an  excellent  Formu- 
lary, or  an  acknowledged  Rule  of  Fmhj  tho'  not  perhaps  ad- 
mitted into  their  Sacred  Offi^ccs.  Upon  the  whole,  and  upon  the 
ftrength  of  the  foregoing  Evidences,  we  may  rcafonably  con- 
clude, that  the  Reception  of  this  Creed,  in  the  Gallic  an  Churches, 
was  at  leaft  as  early  as  6705  underftanding  it  of  it's  Reception 
into  the  Publick  Offices  :  But  underftanding  it  of  it's  Reception 
as  a  Rule  of  Faith,  or  an  orthodox  and  excellent  Formulary 
and  Syftem  o^  Belief,  it  may  be  juftly  fet  as  high  as  550, 
which  is  but  20  years,  or  thereabout,  before  Fortunatus  Com- 
mented upon  it.  Le  ^w;^  fcruples  not  to  fet  it  as  high  as  5  00.* 

Spain. 

Next  to  France,  we  may  mention  her  near  Neighbour  ^p^^, ^^^ 
which  fcems  to  have  received  This  Creed  very  early,  and  with- 
in Icfs  than  a  hundred  years  after  the  Time  before  fix'd  for  it's 
Reception  in  France.  As  to  the  Truth  of  the  Fad,  it  may  be 
argued  Two  feveral  ways.  i.  From  the  near  /Affinity  and  Re- 
lation  between   the  Spanip:  and   Gallican  Ofiiccs,  before  cither 

a  Non  nifi  ex  eodem  i'ymbolo,  qnod  iam  ante  receptum-Q^ict.,  Avitus  Viennenfa »-^ 

alicubi  fcribebat  &c.  Le  ^uien.  Difleru  Damaicen.  p.  98, 

Francs 


So  ANTIENT  RECEPTION  of 

France,  or  Spam  had  received  the  Roman,  i.  From  the  IVth 
Council  of  Toledo  J  their  quoting  Pafiagcs  from  this  very 
Creed. 

I.  As  to  the  firft  Argument,  tho'  2.  ge?ieral  one,  it  muft  ap- 
pear of  Ljreat  W^eight.  If  the  Sacred  Offices  in  France  and  Spain 
were  in  rhofe  Times  tlic  fame,  or  very  nearly  fo  ;  then  the 
Reception  of  this  Creed  in  France  will  afford  a  very  confider- 
ablc  Argument  of  it's  Reception  in  Spam  alfo. 

Cardinal  Bo?ia  is  very  large  and  diffufe  in  fetting  forth 
the  Agreement  and  Harmony  of  tiie  old  Gallican  Offices  with 
the  Spa}iiJ)j,  in  fundry  Particulars'.  And  He  fuppoles  this  Uni- 
formity of  the  Two  Churches  to  have  been  as  early,  at  leaft, 
as  the  days  of  Gregory  Bilhop  of  Tours,  who  died  in  the  Year 
595.  Mabillon,  after  Him,  frequently  afferts  the  fame  Thing**, 
and  with  greater  Affurancethan  Bona  had  done;  having  met  with 
new,  and  fuller  Evidences  to  prove  it ;  Only,  He  dates  the  A- 
grecment  of  the  Spanifh  Mojarabick  Offices  with  the  Gallican^ 
from  the  Hid  and  IVth  Councils  of  Toledo,^  the  latter  of  which 
was  in  the  Year  611.  Mr.  Dodiirll,  fpeaking  of  the  fame  mat- 
ter, fays,  "  Nor  docs  Mahillon  Himfelf  judge  it  probable  that 
"  the  Innovations  attempted  by  Pope  Vigiiius  in  Spain  held  long, 
"  of  what  kind  foever  they  were.  All  Spain  was  foon  after 
**  united  in  one  Form,  and  that  different  from  the  Romafis,  and 
*'  agreeing  with  the  Gallican^.  It  is  therefore  a  plain  Cafe,  that 
the  Galilean  and  Spanijh  Offices  were  very  much  the  fame  in  the 
beginning  of  the  Vllth  Century,  and  fo  continued  for  Ibme 
Time.  If  therefore  the  Gallican  Churches  received  the  Atha- 
nafian  Creed  into  their  Publick  Offices  before  the  year  670,  it 
will  appear  extremely  probable  that  the  Spanifh  receiv'd  it  alfo, 
and  about  the  fame  Time.  I  here  make  a  Di{lin(flion,  as  I  did 
before,  between  receiving  the  Creed  as  a  Rule  of  Faith,  and 
receiving  it  into  the  Solemn  Offices,  to  be  recited,  or  lung  in 
Churches.    The  Reception  of  it,  in  the  firit  Senfe,  I  conceive  to 

a  Bona  Rerum  Liturg.  I.  i.  c  1 1.   p.  1572. 

b  Mabttlon-  lic  Liturg.  Gallican.  Pixf.  5c  lib.  i.  c.  3.  p.  10,   23. 

c  Mabtllon.   Lib.  1.  c.  4.  p.  31. 

d  Dodwell  oi  Inccnk.  p.   1 90. 

have 


the   ATHANASIAN   CREED.  8i 

have  been  fomewhat  earlier,  in  Spm'/^j  as  well  as  in  Franco ^ 
than  it's  Reception  in  the  latter  Senfe.  But  as  different 
Churches  in  France  had  antiently  different  Cuftoms,  lb  alfo 
was  it  in  Spain-.  And  therefore  it  is  probable  that  the  Re- 
ception of  this  Creed  into  the  publick  Offices  was  in  Ibme 
Churches  fooner,  and  in  others  later,  according  to  the  various 
Rites,  Cuftoms,  and    Circumllances  of  the  feveral  Churches. 

But  I  proceed  to  the  Second  Article,  whereby  we  are  to  prove 
the  Reception  of  this  Creed  in  Spam. 

2.  The  IVth  Council  of  Toledo  cites  a  confiderable  part  of 
this  Creed,  adopting  it  into  their  own  Confejjion^.  We  may 
be  confident  that  The  Creed  did  not  borrow  the  Exprellions 
from  Them,  but  They  from  the  Creed ;  fmce  we  are  certain 
that  This  Creed  was  made  long  before  the  year  633.  The 
Reference  to  this  very  Creed  appears  lb  plain  in  the  words  of 
That  Council,  that  moft  of  the  Learned  have  concluded  from 
thence,  that  the  Spanipj  Fathers  had  both  feen,  and  approved 
this  Creed.  Barcn'ms  is  pofitive  that  the  Council  took  their 
Exprellions  from  it ".  Calvifms  dates  the  Fuhlicatiori-  of  the  Creed 
from  That  Council '^ :  So  alfo  Aljledius^.  GavantuSj  in  his  Com- 
ments upon  the  Roman  Breviary,  concludes  from  thence  that 
This  Creed  had  been  read  in  the  church,  as  high  as  That  Time  ^. 

a  Nee  perfonas  confundimus,  nee  Subftititiam  feparamu?.  Patrem  a  nullo  factum,  vel 
gcnitum  dicimus:  Filium  a  Patre  non  fadurn,  fed  gcnitum  alTcrimus:  Spiritum  vero 
Sanftum  nee  creatum,  nee  genitum.  fed  procedentem  a  Patne  &.  Filio  profiremur,  ipfurti 

aiitem  Dominum   Jefum   Chriftum,^ ex  fubftantia  Patris  ante  fsecula  genitum^ ae- 

qualis  Patri  feciindum  Divinitatem,  minor  Patre  fecundum  Humanitateni.^ -H^c  eft 

Ecclefise  Catholic3e  Fides:  Hane  Confefflonem  Confervamus,  atqua  tenemus.  Quam 
quifquis  firmiffime  Cuftodierit,   perpetuam  Saluteni  habebit. j  Cowi/.  TvUt.  IV.  Capitul.  F, 

b  Ex  eodem  Athcmnfii  Symbolo  ea  verba  primi  Capituli  Toletant  quarti  Cosicilii  de- 
du<5la  nofcuntur,  quibus  dicitur,  Patrem  a  nullo  facium  &c.  Baron.  Annal.  Ton),  j. 
p.  436. 

c  Repofirum  fait  in  Archivis,  nee  pubUcAtum,  nifi,  quantum  ex  Hiftoriis  conjicere 
!icet,  poft  trecentos  fere  Annos,  ubi  in  Conciiio  Toletano  quarto  quardam  ex  eo  trai.flata 
verba  recenlentur.  Seth,  Calvif.  Op.  Chronolog.  p.  596. 

d  Symbolum  Athanafii  ab  illo  fcriptum  eft  Rom£  itidem  contra  Ariuf?).  Publicatum  eft 
poft  ?oo  fere  Annos  in  Coneilio  Toletano,  &  inde  ufque  ad  noftra  Tempora  in  Erclelia 
ufurpatum.  ^//?e</.   Thefaur.   p.   1 78. 

e  Athanafius  dum  eftet  Romi,  fcripfit  latine  Symbolum— ——— 6c  recitavit  coram 
Pontifice  8c  ei  alTidentibus,  Ann.  34a,  ut  fcribit  Buron'ms;  8c  eft  illud  idem,  non  muta- 
tum,  legique  Jolitum  in  EccU/ia,  ante  annos  nongentos  fexaginta.  Vide  Annates  ad  Annum 
prKdifium,  Barthol.  Gavant.  Commcntar.  in  Rubric.  Bretjiarii  Romani.  p.   106. 

L  Helvicus 


Si  ANTIENT  RECEPTION   of 

i^dvicHS  *  falls  in  with  the  Opmion  of  Cclvifms,  and  Aljle- 
dm,  grounded  upon  the  Exprefllons  of  this  Council  being 
parallel  to  thofe  of  the  Creed.  Thefc  Authors  have  perhaps 
carried  the  Point  too-  far,  in  fuppofing  This  a  fufficicnt  Proof 
of  any  publkk  Reception  of  the  Creed  in  Spmn,  at  That  Time, 
or  of  it's  being  read  in  their  Churches:  But  it  is  clear  enough, 
that  the  Spanifh  Fathers  had  both  feen  and  approved  it ;  other- 
wife  They  could  not,  or  would  not,  have  borrow'd  fo  plainly 
from  it.  Thus  much  is  allowed  by  moft  of  the  learned  Mo- 
derns, as  .^efnel  ^  Natdis  Alexander  %  Montfaucou  d,  Tillemont  ^y 
Muraforms,  Oudm^,  and  Others,  that  the  Expreffions  of  That 
Council,  and  This  Creed,  are  parallel,  and  one  borrow'd  from 
the  other,  and  the  words  of  the  Council  from  the  words  of 
the  Creed:  Only,  Murdtorius  hints  as  if  a  doubt  might  be  made 
whether  the  Council  took  from  the  Creed,  or  the  Creed  from 
the  Council  §  ;  which  may  feem  flrange  in  Him,  who  fuppofes 
the  Creed  to  have  been  made  by  Fortunatus,  many  years  before 
That  Council  was  held.  But,  I  fuppoic,  He  is  there  fpeaking 
of  the  Argument  drawn  from  the  words  of  that  Council  alone, 
abftracling  from  the  other  Circumftance,  and  previous  to  the 
Confideration  of  Fortunatm's  Comment :  Other  wife  He  is  guilty 
of  a  very  great  Over-fight.  It  appears  then,  that  this  Creed 
was  known,  and  approved  in  Spain  as  early  as  633  :  And  it  is 
obfervable  how  exadly  This  falls  in  with  the  Time,  when  the 
Spamfh  Churches  are  fuppofed  to  have  received  the  Gdlic^fn 
Offices,  according  to  Mabillorh  Account.     Wherefore  it  is  cx- 

a  ^;^4»<3r/;/«  Symbolum  fcribit  'R.omst,,  &  Concilio  offert;  non  tamen  publicatur,  nifi 
pofl:  300  fcrniC  Annos  in  Cov^cX\o  Toletano-  Helvic.  Theatr-  Hijlor.  ad  An.  ^^p- 

b  Imo  &  jam  ab  Anno  653  aliqua  ey  ifto  Symbolo  dclcripta  mihi  videntur  in  ea  Con- 
feffione  Fidei,  q'laeedita  efl;  a  Concilio  Toletano.  4.  habeturque  Capit,  i.cjufdem.  ,^e/nel, 
DiflTcrt.  XIV.*  p.  751. 

c  Natal.  Alexand.  Tom.  IV.  p.  109. 

d  Montfauc.  Diatrib.  p.  72c. 

e  Tillemont.  Memoires-  Tom.  8-  p.  670. 

f  oudin.  Comment,  de  Script.  Eccl.  p.  548- 

g  Vcrum  ne  majoris  qiiiJcni  momcnti  funt  verba  ilia,  qus  in  Concilii  Toletani  quarti 
ProfcHione  leguntur:  Quamvis  enim  Phrafes  nonnulla:  ibidem  inyeniantur  Symboli  Phrali- 
bus  oppido  finiilcs,  attamen  ejufmodi  noft  funt  ut  iis  Patribus  Symholnm  jam  innotuifle 
dcmonftrent.  Quin  ex  eoJem  Concilio  has  formulas  quis  deiibaJTe  videri  poteft,  ut  inde 
$yn)bolHm  iftud  conflaret,    Mtiratorii  Anecdot.  Ambrof.  Tom.  1.  p.  223. 

trcmely 


7he   ATEANASIAN   CREED,  S| 

ttemely  probable,  that  about  This  Time  They  rccsivd  this  Creed 
fiom  the  Gallica?^  Churches ;  received  it  as  an  Orthodox  Formu- 
lary, and  an  approved  R^le  of  Fmh.  As  to  their  taking  it  into 
their  pMck  Service,  and  Pfrlmody,  I  pretend  not  to  let  it  fo 
hi^^h,  having  no  Proof  that  they  did  receive  it,  in  that  Senfe, 
fo^early  :  But  as  foon  as  the  Gdlicm  Churches  made  it  a  part 
of  ihcin  Pfdmody,  we  may  reafonably  think  that  the  Spmijh  did 
fo  too  5  or  within  a  very  fhort  Time  after. 

German  y. 

Next  to  Frmce,  and  Spam,  we  may  mention  Germmiy^,  not  Soo 
only   becaufe   of  their  nearnefs   of  Situation    to     Trmce,    but 
alfo  becaufe  of  their  mutual  Intercourfe,  and  Affinity  with  each 
other.     This  Creed,  very  probably,  was  received  in  fome  Parts 
of  Germmyy  foon  after  it  obtain  d  in  the  Gdlicm  Church.  The 
mutual  Intercourfe  of  the  German  and  Gdlicm  Churches  makes 
it  probable  :  And  the  antient  Manufcript   of  the  Creed  found 
-at  Treves,  or  Triers,  in  Germany,  may  perfuade  the  fame  Thing. 
Our  pofi'tive  Evidence  is  however  clear  and  certain  for  the  Re- 
ception of  the  Creed,  as  early  as  870,  being  then  tranflated  by 
Otfridus  into  the  German,  or   Teutonick  Language.     Anjchariuss 
Inftrudions  to  his  Clergy  (above  mention'd;  will  afford  an  Ar- 
gument for  the  Reception  of  this  Creed  in  Germany  from  the 
Time  of  his  holding  the  See  of  Hamburg,  or  from  830:    And  it 
was  received  at  Bajil,  as   we  learn  from  Hatto  Bilhop   of  the 
Place,  before  820.    Indeed,  I  have  above  refer'd  ^^/Z  to  7^//?;^^^, 
confiderino;  how  it  flood  in  Hattos  Time,  and  that  it  was  part 
of  antient^  Gaul :  But  then  it  was  upon  the  Confines  of  Ger- 
many, and  has  in  later  Times  been  reckon'd  to  it  5  and  we  have 
good  reafon  to  think  that  the  Cuftoms  of  thz  German  Churches 
in  the  IXth  Century  were  nearly  the  fame  with  thofe  of  the 
Church  of  Bajil  in  820.     What  pafs'd  in  the  Council  oi  Frank- 
fort (if  I  miftake  not  in   my  Conflrudion  of   it;  may  warrant 
the  carrying  it  up  as  high  as  794-     And  it  was  6  years  before 
That,  namely  in   the  year  7  8  8,  that   Pope  Adrian  fent  to  St. 
Willehad,  Bifhop    of  Breme,^  The  famous   Pfaltcr  of  Charles  the 

L  2  Great, 


84  ANTIENT  RECEPTION  of 

C;r^/%  with  this  Creed  in  it,  the  fame  that  I  have  fpokcn  of 
above.  No  wonder  therefore  that  Anfcharius  and  RembertuSj  after- 
wards Archbilhops  of  Hamburg  and  Breme,  fo  very  highly  valu'd 
This  Creed.  The  particular  regard  paid  to  this  Creed  by  Charles 
the  Cre^t,  in  the  year  772,  may  plead  perhaps  in  favor  of  a  more 
early  Date :  At  Icaft,  no  doubt  can  be  made  but  as  foon  as  He 
came  to  be  Emperor^  if  not  a  great  deal  fooner,  the  GemifLn 
Churches  (as  well  as  the  Gdlicati  before)  admitted  this  Creed,  even 
into  tho^i):  public k  OlHces.  It  is  of  This  Time  that  an  Aaonymous 
Author  cited  above,  in  a  Trad  direded  to  Charlemagne^  then 
Emperor,  fays,  that  this  Creed  was  profefsd  by  the  Umverfal 
church.  We  cannot  therefore  be  miftaken  in  fetting  the  Re- 
ceptiori'  of  it  in  Germany ,  as  high  as  the  year  800.  So  high  may 
pals  for  certain  Fad:  And  there  is  great  probability  for  the 
mnning  it  up  many  years  higher. 

England. 

%%o  As  to  our  own  Country,  we  have  clear  and  pofitive  Proof  of 
the  Creed's  being  fung  alternately  in  our  Churches  in  the  Tenth 
Century,  when  Abbo  of  Fleury  an  ear-witnefs  of  it,  was  here  j 
and  when  the  Saxon  Veffions,  ftill  extant,  were  of  {landing 
ufc  for  the  Inftrudion  and  Benefit  both  of  Clergy  and  People. 
Thefe  Evidences  alone  will  prove  the  Reception  of  this  Creed 
ui  England  to  have  been  as  early  as  950,  or  930,  or  the  Time 
of  Athelftan,  whofe  Latin  Pfalter,  with,  the  Creed  in  it,  remains 
to  this  Day.  The  Ag^c  of  the  manufcript  Verfions  will  war- 
rant us  thus  far  :  But,  polllbly,  if  thofe  Verfions  were  thoroughly 
cxamin'd  by  a  Critick  in  the  Saxon,  it  might  appear  that  the 
Verfion,  or  Verfions  were  many  years  older  than  the  Manu- 
fcripts.  This  I  am  no  judge  of  my  felf  j  nor  have  I  an  oppor- 
tunity of  Examining :  But  I  am  willing  to  leave  a  fhort  Hint 

a  Codex  iftc— — — in  Bibliotheca  cubiculari  fummi  Pcntificis  HaJriani  I.  pcrmanfit  uP 
que  ad  Annum  DCCLXXXVIII,  quo  S.  M^'illehadus  ab  codem,  cum  confcnfu  Caroli  M. 
primus  Epifcopus  Iire7)}enfis  dcclaratus  eft.  Tunc  videlicet  P.  P.  HaJnanus  cundcm  ilium 
Codicetn  Pfalterii,  queni  ipfe  in  principio  Pontificatus  fui  tanquam  munus  gratulatorium  a- 
Carob  Magna  acceperar,  cadem  ratione  donavir  S.  Wdlehadcy  ut  ille,  in  novo  Epifcoparu 
Tpp,  fru^tetur  uft^.^cri  iftiuj^  munerist  Lttm^tc  CataL  B.bl.  Vindsb.  1,  2.  c.  f.  p-'z97- 

with, 


Jhe    ATEAUASUN    CREEJ>.  2^ 

with  Thofc  that  have  fuch  Opportunities,  and  can  judge  with 
ceuainty,  from  a  thorough  Acquaintance  with  all.  the  little, 
gradual  Alterations  introduced  into  the  old  i'-^j^ow  Language, 
from  the  firft  coming  in  of  the  T>mes,''  that  is,  from  the  year  787. 
There  is  yet  another  Rule  for  determining  the  Time  when  This. 
Creed  came  firft  to  be  received  in  England  ^  which  is  from  it's, 
having  a  place  in  the  Lmti'  Pfalters,  fuch  as  were  written  in 
Bnglmd  at  fuch  a  Time.  For  I  perfuade  my  felf,  that  it  would 
aot  have  been  inferted  in  the  Pfdters  among  the  other  Cmtklei 
of  the  Church,  but  when  it  was  receiv'd  as  well  as  Thofe.  Such 
a  Tfdter^  as  I  conceive,  there  now  is  in  Benet  College  Library 
in  Cambridge^  written  in  England^  and  in  the  Ninth  Century. 
Wherefore,  upon  the  v^^hole,  and  all  Circumftances  confider'd, 
\  may  prefume  to  name  the  year  880,  or  thereabout,  for  the 
Reception  of  this  Creed  in  England,  in  the  Time  o^Y^,  Alfred. 
Further  Inquiries  may  perhaps  carry  it  up  higher :  But  it  can- 
not reafonably  be  brought  lower,  and  fo  there  1  leave  it. 

Italy. 

We  learn  from  Ratherius,  above  cited,  that  This  Creed  was  ^sa 
in  common  ufe  in  fome  parts  of  Italy,  particularly  in  the  Diocefs 
oi  Verona  in  Low  Lombardy,  in  his  Time,  that  is  about  960, 
He  then  fpeaks  of  it  as  a  Man  would  do  of  a  Formulary  that  had 
been  cuftomary  amongft  them,  and  of  long  ftanding.  He  ex- 
horts his  Clergy  to  make  themfelvcs  Mafters  of  the  Three  Creeds, 
Apofiles,  Nicene,  ^indAthanafiany  without  the  leaft  intimation  o£ 
the  laft  of  them  being  newly  introduced.  I  incline  to  think  that 
from  the  Time  that  Lombardy  became  a  Province  of  the  French 
under  Charles  the  Great  (about  the  year  774.)  This  Creed  ob^ 
tain'd  there  by  means  of  That  Prince ,  who  had  fo  great 
a  value  for  it,  and  whofe  Cuftom  it  was  to  difperfe  it  abroad- 
wherever  He  had  any '  Power,  or  Influence.  He  prefented  it. 
to  the  Pope  Himfelf  in  7  7  2 :  He  delivered  it,  about  the  fame 
Time,  or  before,  to  the  Monks^  of  Mount-Olivet  in  Jerufalem  of 
his  Foundation.     And  it  appears  to  have  been  with  his  confent, 

5l_  Vid.  E'ukeJ,  Grammat.  Anglo-Saxon,  p.  85. 

OS 


n  ANTJENT     RECEPTION     of 

or  perhaps  at  his  Rcqucft,  that  Pope  Adrian  conveyed  it  to  UIU 
lehjid ,  the  firft  Bilhop  o't  Breme,  in  7S8.  Thefc  Circumftances 
make  it  highly  probable  that  the  fame  Churles  the  Great  intro- 
duced this  Creed  into  Lombardy  foon  after  his  ConqueO:  of  it. 
•And  indeed  nothing  could  be  more  (crviceable  at  That  Time, 
in  X  Country  which  had  fo  long  before  been  corrupted  with 
Ar'mnifm.  Add  to  This,  that  it  appears  highly  probable  that 
the  Galilean  Plalter  was  introduced  into  the  Churches  of  Italy j 
foon  after  Lombardy  became  a  Province  under  the  Kings  of 
France:  And  if  their  Pf alter  c^xno.  in,  no  doubt  but  their  Creed, 
Then  a  part  of  their  Pfalter,  came  in  with  it.  Cardinal  Bona 
obferves,  and  fcems  to  wonder  at  it,  that  the  GalLican  Pfalter 
obtained  in  moft  parts  of  Italy  in  the  eleventh  Century."  He 
might  very  probably  have  fet  the  Date  higher,  as  high 
perhaps,  or  very  near,  as  the  conqueft  of  Lombardy  by  Char- 
lemagne. Thus  far  at  leaft,  we  may  reafonably  judge,  that 
Thofe  parts  which  were  more  immediately  fubjed  to  the  Kings 
of  Trance ,  Verona  efpecially,  one  of  the  firfl:  Cities  taken, 
receiv'd  the  Galilean  Pfalter  fooner  than  the  reft.  However, 
fince  I  here  go  only  upon  Probabilities,  and  have  no  po- 
fitive  Proof  of  the  prcdife  Time  when  either  the  Greedy  or  the 
Tfalter  came  in,  and  it  might  take  up  fomc  years  to  intro- 
duce them,  and  fettle  them  There  ( new  Cuftoms  generally 
meeting  with  difficulties ,  and  oppofition  at  the  firil)  Thefe 
things  confidcred,  1  am  content  to  fuppofc  the  fame  Time  for 
the  Reception  of  this  Creed  in  Italy,  as  I  have  before  named 
for  our  own  Country  5  which  is  but  80  years  higher  than  Ra- 
theritis,  and  is  above  1 00  years  from  the  intire  conqueft  of 
Lombardy  by  Charles  the  Great.  There  may  be  Ibme  reafon  to 
fufpccl  that  This  Creed  had  been  known  in  Italy,  and  re- 
<-^/i^^^,  at,  leaft  in  fome  of  the  Monajleries  there,  near  200  years 
before.  The  Manufcript  of  Boblo,  in  Langobardick  Character,  and 
written  about  the  year  700,  or  fooner,  will  afford  a  very  ftrong 
Prcfumption  of  it.  And  if  we  confider  how  from  the  year 
639,  in  the  Time  of  Rotharls,    one  of  the    Lombard  Kings  of 

a  Bona:  rerum  Liturg    Lib.  j.  c,  3.  p.  fo6.  ^ 

Italy 


the  ATBAKASIAK  CREED.  By 

Itdy,  there  had  been  a  conftant  ftruggle  between  the  Catholkks 
and  ArianSy  and  a  Succeflion  of  Bifhops  on  Both  Sides  kept  up, 
in  ahiioft  every  City  of  his  Dominions,  for  many  years  to- 
gether 5  I  fay,  from  Thefe  confiderations,  one  might  reafonably 
prefume  that  the  Catholicks  had  about  that  Time  procured  This 
Creed,  together  with  Bdchiiirii  Fides,  and  Gennadims  Trad,  out 
of  the  Gdlicfin  Parts,  to  arm  themfelves  the  better  againfl  the 
fprcading  Herefy.  But  as  This  does  not  amount  to  a  publick 
Reception  of  it ,  nor  is  the  Fad  fo  clear  as  not  to  be  liable. 
to  difpute,  I  pretend  not  to  infift  upon  it. 


Rome. 

Rcme  is  of  diftind  Confideration  from  the  other  parts  of  931 
Italy,  and  was  always  more  deiirous  of  impofing  her  own  Of- 
fices upon  other  Churches,  than  of  receiving  any  from  Them. 
The  Filioque,  in  the  Conjlfintinopolitan  Creed,  had  been  long  ad- 
mitted into  all  the  other  Weftern  Churches  before  Rome  would, 
accept  it ;  which  was  not  (at  leaft  it  does  not  appear  that  it 
was)  till  the  Middle  "of  the  Eleventh  Century,  or  about  1050. 
The  Cuftom  of  reciting  the  Nicene,  or  Confiantinopolitcm  Creed, 
in  the  Communion- Service,  had  prevailed  in  Spain,  France,  and 
Germany  for  feveral  Centuries  5  and  was  at  length  but  hardly 
admitted  zx.  Rome  in  the  year  1014.  It  was  thought  civil  enough 
o^the  Popes  of  Rome  to  allow  the  other  Weftern  Churches  to 
vary  from  the  Roman  Cuttoms  in  any  thing:  And  Thofe  other 
Churches  could  not  enjoy  that  Liberty  and  Privilege  in  quiet, 
without  complying  with  the  Roman  Offices  in  moft  Things  be- 
sides. The  Ufe  of  the  Athanafian  Creed  was  one  of  thofe 
Things  wherein  They  were  before-hand  with  the  Church  of 
Rome^  and  in  which  .they  were  indulg'd  j  as  was  alfo  the  Ufe 
of  the  Gallic  an  Pfalter,  which  the  Weftern  Churches  in  general 
were  allowed  ""  to  have,  while  the  Romans  were  tenacious  of 

a  Mexcmder  IV  in  fua  Conftitutione  qux  eft  Sexta  in  Bdlario  Ordinis  'Eretnit arum  San. 
St\  Aiigiifiini,  mandat  Trior',  Cenerali  &  reliquis  Fratribus  in  Tufcia,  ut  recitent  Officium 
juxta  morera  Romma  Ecclefije,  iXQ^pKoP/alierio.  Bona;  Rer.  Liturg.  1.  a.  c,  3.  p.  fo6. 

their 


S8  ANTIEMT  RECEPTION  of 

their  own.     But  tho'  the  Romans  retained  their  own  P falter  all 
the  way  down  to  the  middle  of  the  XVIth  Century  i  yet  They 
had  Ions  before  borrowed  This  Creed  from  the  Gdlic^in^  and 
received  it  into  their  Omces.     This  is  certain  Fad ;  but  as  to 
the  precife  Time  when  it  was  hrit   done,    it  may  not  be  eafy 
to  determine.      It   was,    without    all   qucftion,    before   Thomas 
Aquinafs  days;  who  tells  us  (as  above   cited)  that  This   Creed 
was  reccivd  by  the  Authority  of  the  Pope :  1  wifh  He  had  told  us 
-whfit  Pope.     That  it  was  not  recei\ed  into  the  Roman.  Offices 
fo  Toon  as  the  year  809,  may  be  probably  argued  from  a  Cafe 
that  then   happen'd,  which  has  been  hinted  above.     The  Latin 
Monks  of  Alount  Olivet ^  (founded  by  Charles  the  Great)  in  their 
Apoiogetical   Letter   to   Pope  Leo  III,    made  the  beft  Defenfe 
they  were  able  of  their  own  Pradice  in  their  publick  Profefling 
that  the  Holy  Ghoft  proceeds  from  the  Son.  They  pleaded  the  open 
Acknowledgment  of  the    fame  Doctrine  in  Charles   the   Great's 
own  Chapel;  and  that  the  fame  Doclrine  had  been  taught  Them, 
in  St.  Greeory's  Homilies,  and  in  the  Rule  of  St.  Benedid,   and  in 
the  Athanajian  Creed,  and  in  a  Dialogue  given  Them  by  Pope 
Leo  Himfelf  ^     Now,  had  the  Athariajian  Creed   been  at  That 
Time   recited    in    the   publick    Oflices   at  Rome^    Thofe  Monks 
who  were  fo  particular  in   every  little  Circumftance  pleadable 
in   their    Favor,  could  not  have  failed  (cfpecially    upon  their 
mentioning  the  Athanajian  Creed)  to  have  pleaded  a  Thing  fo 
notorious,  and  which  would  have  given  the  greateft  Counte- 
nance  and   Authority  poiliblc   to   Them,  and  their  Dodrine ; 
and  mufl:  have  been  of  the  greateft  Weight  and  Force  with  Pope 
Leo,  to  \\  hom  They  were   writmg,  and  whole  Protedion  They 

Sicquoquc  S.  Francifctts,  ut  teftatur  Trajfen'ms  fDifqu.  Bib.  C.6.S.  i.)  illius  Ordinis 
Fratcr,  in  Re^u!a  liiorum  pricipit  :  Clerici  fuciant  Divinum  officinm  fecimJum  Ordmem 
fanBs.  Romanx  Ecclefiji,  excepto  Pfalterio.  Hod.  de  Text.  Bibl.  p.  383.  Vid.  ctiam  fupra 
p.  6  r. 

a  BcnignifTime  Pater,  dum  efTcm  Ego  Leo,  fervus  vcftcr.  ad  Sanfti  vcfligia  vefira,  &ad 
pia  vcftigia  Domni  Karoli,  piiffimi  Impcratoris,  Filiiquc  veftri,  audivimus  in  Capclla  ejus 
dici  in  Symbolo  Fidei,  cjui  ex  patre  Ftltoque  procedit.  Et  in  Homilia  S.  Gregoni,  quam 
nobis  Films  vcftcr  Domnus  Karolus  Iinperator  dedit,  in  parabola  Ortavarum  Pafchar,  ubi 
dixit :  Sed  ejus  mifp.o  ipfa  procejjlo  efl,  qui  de  ratre  procedti  c""  •f"'^'"'  Et  in  Regula  S.  Eene- 
fliiti,  qiia"rn  nobis  dcdit  Filius  vefler  Domntf!  Karolus,  — — — Sc  in  Dialogo  qucm  nobis 
vefira  Janriitas  dare  dignata  eft,  fimilitcr  dicit.  Et  in  Fide  S.  At hmafii  co^cm  modo  dicit. 
T.pifi.  Monach.  Montn-hlivet:   a[>ud  Le  J^ae/j,  Damafc.  D.flcr^  pra;v.  p.  7. 

were 


the    ATEAKASIAN    CREED.  8p 

were  then  feeking,  and  humbly  imploring.  From  hence  then 
one  may  rcafonably  infer,  that  This  Creed  was  not  received 
into  the  lioma^  Offices  Co  early  as  the  year  809.  Let  us  now 
inquire  whether  we  can  fix  upon  any  later  Time  for  it's  com- 


mg  ni. 


Genebrard  teflifies  that  in  the  oldeft  Roman  Breviaries  He 
could  meet  with,  or  hear  of,  This  Creed  always  made  a  part 
of  the  Service "".  But  This  is  too  general,  nor  can  we  be 
certain  how  antient  tliofe  oldeft  Breviaries  were,  nor  whe- 
ther They  belonged  to  the  Roman  Church,  ftridly  fo  called, 
or  to  other  Wejlern  Churches.  And  indeed,  I  know  not  how 
we  can  come  to  any  Certainty  in  This  Matter,  unlefs  it 
be  by  examining  into  the  Roman  Pfalters  which  have  This 
Creed  in  Them.  Whenever  The  Creed  came  into  the  Roman 
Pfalters,  we  may  juOly  conclude,  that  at  the  fame  Time  it  came 
into  the  Roman  Offices.  We  have  in  our  Publick  Library  ac 
Cambridge  a  Roman  Pfalter,  written  for  the  ufe  of  the  Church 
of  Canterbury  ( as  our  judicious  Mr.  Wanlej  rcafonably  con- 
jedures^Jand  about  the  Time  of  the  Conquefi^o):  ix  little  before, 
fuppofe  1 060.  The  Church  of  Canterbury  more  efpecially  ufed  tiic 
Roman  Pfalter,  as  hath  been  obferved  above,  and  was  in  all  Things 
conformable,  of  old  Time,  to  the  Roman  Offices.  Now,  if 
this  Creed,  which  had  long  before  been  introduced  into  the 
Gallican  Pfalters,  did  at  this  Time  obtain  in  the  Roman  alfo; 
it  is  obvious  to  conclude,  that  it  at  the  fame  Time  made  a 
part  of  the  Roman  Offices,  even  at  Rome  it  felf,  as  well  as  Can- 
terbury,  fince  one  was  conformable  to  the  other.  This  Argu- 
ment may  carry  us  up  fome  years  higher:  For  there  is  another, 
an  older  Roman  Pfalter,  taken  notice  of  above,  which  has  This 
Creed  in  it  ^  >  written  about  the  year  930,  in  the  Time  of  K. 

a  In  vetuftifTimis  Romans  Ecclcdx  a p^>.oy.oi'',  (  H:pc  nunc  vocamus  Breviaria  )  fuh  A- 
thanaf:i  nomine  ejus  ad  Primam  recitatio  uAi  reccpta  cA.  Gembr.  in  Symb.  Athanal. 
p.    J. 

b  Notandum  vero  in  Litania  extare  \\xc  verba'  Ut  Archiepifeopum  nojlrutv,  ^  omntm 
Congregatiomm  illi  commijj'^im,  in  fancfa,  religinne  confervarc  e!ig!T'ris,te  regnmus:  quibu.s  pcnc 
inducor  ut  credam  hunc  Cod.  olim  pertinuiflc  ad  Ecciefiam  Chiifti  Salvatoris  Cantuariac. 
Wanleii  Catal.  p.   ifi. 

c  1  have  been  certified  of  1  his  fince  my  -writing  of  page  tie  "^^'h  The  Creed  in  That 
pfalter  bears  the  very  fame  Title  with  Dr.  Wottoa'^  alove.  p.  63. 

M  Atheljlan. 


i?o  ANTIENT   RECEPTION    of 

Jthelfim.  It  is  faid  to  have  belonged  formerly  to  Archbifhop 
Cranmer.  Perhaps  This  alio  might  have  been  written  for 
the  life  of  the  Church  of  Canterbury :  1  know  of  no  Church, 
amongft  us  which  at  that  Time  ufed  the  Rom^n  Pfalterj  but  the 
Church  of  Canterbury.  However,  it  is  highly  improbable  that  any 
Church  which  complied  fo  far  with  Ronnie,  as  to  ufe  the  Rom:in 
Pfaltcr,  fhould  take  This  Creed  into  That  Pfalter  before  fuch 
Time  as  Rome  it  iclf  had  done  the  fame  Thing.  Upon  the 
Strength  of  This  Argument,  tho'  it  be  not  demonftrative,  but 
probable  only,  ffuch  as  the  Cafe  will  admit  of,  and  fuch  as 
may  very  well  pafs  till  we  can  fix  upon  fomething  more  certain) 
I  fay  upon  the  Strength  of  This,  I  incline  to  date  the  Reception  of 
this  Creed  at  Rome  from  the  Tenth  Century,  and  the  Beginning 
of  it,  about  the  year  930.  From  this  Time  forwards,  I  pre- 
fume,  the  Athnnafmn  Creed  has  been  honoured  with  a  publick 
Recital,  among  the  other  Sacred  Hymns  and  Church  Offices,  all 
over  the  Weft.  The  way  has  been  to  recite  it  at  the  Prime,  or 
Firft  Hour  {one  a  Clock  in  the  Lfitin  Account,  with  us  /even 
in  the  Morning)  every  Lord's-Day  ^  ;  and  in  fome  Places  Every 
Day  ^  But  as  the  Cuftom  of  making  it  only  a  part  of  the 
Sunday-Service  is  the  moft  a?ttient,  fo  has  it  likewife  been  the 
moft  general,  and  prevailing  5  and  is  at  this  Day  the  common 
and  conftant  Ufage  of  the  Churches  within  the  Roman  Com- 
munion. And  let  This  .fuffice  fo  far  as  concerns  the  Weft  em 
Churches. 

of  the  Greek  md  Oriental   Churches. 

As  to  the  Greek,  or  Oriental  Churches,  I  referved  This  Place 
for  them,  that  I  might  not  entirely  omit  them.  It  has  been 
queftion  d,  whether  any  of  them  ever  received  This  Creed  at 

a  Die  Dominico  ad  prirnam  recitetur.  Hatt*  "BafiL  A.  D.  820. 

Per  omnes  occidentis  Ecclefias  Dominicis  Temper  diebus    Pfallitur    ■  ■  ■  in  Cun6Hs 

Ecclefiis  publics  cani  prxcepta.  Manuel.  Calec.  Bibl.  P.P.Tom,  XXVl-  p.  4.14. 

b  Fidem,  ^tticunque  vtilt,  quoridie  ad  primam  iterat.  Honor.  Augtift.  Ad  primam  di- 
cuiu  quotidie  Symbolum  Athanafii.  Bona  de  Carthufianis.  p.  S97.  Pfalmod. 

Ad  primam  ■■  quotidie  fubditur  Symbolum  Athnnafit,  Bona  de  Ambrofianis  p. 

900.  Diyin.  Pfalmod. 

alL 


The  ArHAN.^SIAN  CREED.  pi 

all.  VoJJius^  feems  to  have  thought  that  they  never  have:  And 
To  alfo  Combefifms^.  And  Dr.  Smith,  in  h\s  Account  of  the  Greek 
church,  is  pofitive  that  as  to  the  Creed  of  Athanafius,  the  Greeks 
are  wholly  Strangers  to  it^. 

Neverthelefs,  I  find  fome  very'  confiderable  Men  of  a  con- 
trary Perfwafion,  and  not  Roryianifis  only,  as  Buronim,  Spon- 
danus^,  MurMorius^,  Renaudot  ^,  and  others,  but  Proteflants. 
alfo,  as  particularly  Gundling,  whofe  words  I  have  put  into  the 
Margins.  We  may  obferve  however,  that  thus  far  is  agreed 
on  all  Hands,  that  This  Creed  is  not  received  in  All  the 
Greek  Churches ;  and,  if  it  is  in  Any,  yet  it  is  there  differently 
read  in  the  Article  of  Proceffion.  It  is  not  pretended  that  Any 
of  the  African  Churches,  Alexandrian,  Nubian,  or  Ethiopian 
(which  are,  moft  of  Them,  of  the  Jacobite,  or  Eutjchian  Sed) 
have  received  it.  So  far  from  it,  that  They  have  not,  (at  leaft 
the  Ethiopian  or  AbyJJ'ene  Churches  have  not)  fo  much  as  the 
Apofiles-Creed  amongft  them,  if  we  may  believe  Ludolphus :  ^ 
So  little  are  They  acquainted  with  the  Latin  Forms,   or  Con- 

a  Nee  qui  noftra  aetate  Patriarcha  Akxandrinus,  &  Prxfes  Ccnjlamlnopoleos  fuit,  pro  ger- 
mane i'.Iud  Symholum  habuit.  Sic  enim  Meletius  literis  luis  ConJiantinopoU,  Anno  if97,  ad 
Johannem  Dounnm,  Nordovicem  datis,  &  a  Filio  Georgia  Donza  editis.  "  ^thanajio  Eiifo 
"zdicr'i^tMm  Symbolum,  cum  appendice  ilia  Romanorum  Pomificum  adulteratum,  luce 
♦'lucidius  conteftamur.  Vojf.  de  Trib.  Symb.  DilTert.  i.  c.  20.  p.  j-zi. 

b  Combef.  not.  ad  Calec.  p.  297.  &  notatione  48  in  vitam  Balilii  Pkudo-Amphiloch. 
.- Symbolum  Athanafii  Grui  ut  ejus  non  recipiunt. 

c  Smith.  Account  &c.  p.  I95. 

d  Spondanus  epiiominmg  the  words  of  Ba.Ton\us,  as  I  find  quoted  by  Tentzelius />.   l/t. 

Cum  autem  e  Romanae  Ecclefiae  antiquts  monumentis,  veluti  eruderatum  emerfit  in 
lucem,  turn  a  Latinis  omnibus,  turn  a  GrAcis  aeque  fufceptum  eft:  non  ab  Ecclefia  Con- 
Jlantinopolitana  tantum,  fed  Serviana,  Bulgarica,  Kujjica,  Mofcov'ttica,  &  aliiss  licet  ab  eis 
dempta  inde  pars  ilia  fuerit,  qua  Spiritum  Sanflum  a  Patre  Filioque  procedere  exprelTum 
habetur. 

^  Re  vera,  non  Ecclt;fia  tantanVCcnfiantinopolhana,  fed  Serviana,  Bulgarica,  Rujfica, 
MofcoTitica,  aliaeque  Ritui  Graeco  addidlx ,  etfi  Athanajiano  Symbolo  in  Sacris  Liturgiis 
utantur,  hanc  tamen  particulam,  ^  Ftlio,  inde  exclulere.     Muratov.  Tom.  2.  p.  227. 

f  Quod  dicitur  Domini  Filius  afTumpliiTe  Hominem  ^c.  redum  eft,  Symbolo  quod  A- 
?/;^«;i/7/ dicitur,  8c  a  Cracis  Laiinifque  recipitur,  conforme.  Renaud.  Orient.  Liturg.  Vol. 
2.  p.  6+3. 

g  Mirari  quis  poffit  cur  Graci  Proceffionem  Spiritus  Sanifli  a  Filio  regent,  Additionem 
ad  Sytnbolum  Nianum  tarn  a?gre  feianr,  cum  taracn  Symbolmn  Athamtjii  recipiant.  Gund- 
ling.  Not.  ad  Euftrat.  ^c.  p.-68. 

h  Ltidolph.  HiRoT.  ^Ethiop.  1.  5.  c.  j-.  Symbolo  Fidei  Catholics    Nicccno  communiter 

utuntur— iilo  quo  nos  utiniur,  uti  caeteri  Orientales,  carent ;  baud  levi  indicio  A- 

pojlolos  iliius  Autores  non  efle. 

M   2  fclllons. 


c,i  ANTIENT     RECEPTION  of 

fcfllons.     Nor    is    it   pretended    that    the    more  Eaftern  Chri- 
ftians,    belonging   to   the    Patriarchates  of  Antioch ,    and   Jeyii- 
J'alem,  have  any  Acquaintance  with  the  Athnnajlan  Creed  :  No 
not  the  M.ironites,-  tho'  They  formerly  llibmitted  to  the  See  of 
Rome-,  and  are  flili  llippoled    to    hold  Communion   therewith, 
and  to  acknowledge  the  Vope  for  their  Head.     All  that  is  j5Ve- 
tended,   with  refpect  to  This    Creed,  is,  that  the  Churches  of 
Confl dntimple ^  Ser^via,,    Btdga,ria^  RuffJa,    and   Mujcovy^    acknow- 
ledge it  as  Athdnafius^j  or   make   ufe  of  it   in   their  Common 
and  Sacred  Offices.     And  for  proof  of  This,  it  has  been  ufual 
to  appeal  to  a  Paflage  of  C^;r./2;/(?T7/<j,  a  Poliih  Knight,  in  a  Letter 
of  his  to  Calvin:  which  Letter  1  have  not  feen,  but  find  quoted 
both  by  Genebrard  ^  Tun^iFoJJms^,  Men  of  oppofite  Principles,  and 
therefore   the  more  fafcly  to  be  relied  on  where  They  agree. 
But    what  does  C^zamvius    confefs?    That  the   Greek,  Servian , 
Ruffian,  and  Mujcovite  Churches   acknowledge  the   Athanafian 
Creed,  as  Athanajiuss  j  only  curtaiL'd  (or,  as  They  would   fay, 
corrected^  as  to  the  Point  of  t\\Q,  Proceffwn.     A  Confefllon  from 
a  Socinian  Adverfary,  in  this  cafe,  is  of  lome  A^^eight ;  and  efpe- 
cially  if  it  can  be  inforced  by  any  corroborating  Evidence.  Let 
us  fee  then  what  may  be  further  learn'd  concerning  the  feveral 
Churches  here  named,  and  the  Reception  of  this  Creed  in  them. 
I  may  take  them  one  by  one. 

I.  To  hzp.w  ^ixh.  Mufcovy,  where  the  Matter  of  Fa6l  feems 
to  be  mod  fully  attefted  of  Any.  In  the  Account  given  of 
the  Lord  Carlijle's  Embafly  from  K.  Charles  II.  to  the  Great 
Duke  oi  Mufcovy,  in  the  year  1663  S  I  meet  w^th  This  Pallage, 
relating  to  the  A^ufcovites,  and  their  Divine  Service :  "  The 
*'  whole  Service  is  perform'd  by  Reading  of  certain  Pfalms,  or 
"  Chapters   in    the  Bible  :    Sometimes  the  Prieft  adds  Athana- 

a  Si  Athanafii  cfl,  cujiifnam  illud  erit  quod  nunc  Cncerum,  Serviorum,  Rtijforum,  & 
Mofionwi  Kcclffis  Tub  cjuldcm  AthaKafit  titido  retincnt,  ac  pro  genuine  agnofcunt? 
Cazanov.  ad  Calvin.  Epift.  apud  Gcncbr,  dc  Symbol.  Athmaf.  p.   7. 

b  Cazanoviui  Sarmata  —  ctfi  multum  ei  Hoc  Symbolum  dilp  iccat,  agnofcic  tamen 

Athaunfianum  vccaii.non  in  Latina  folunn  F.cclcfia,  led  ct\am  in  Conjiantinopoli/ana,  Serviana, 
Bulgarica,  Alofcovitic.i»   VolV.  de  Symb.  DifT.  2.  c.  i .  p.  j"i6. 

c  Harris'j  CompUat  CotUBion  &c.  Vol.  2.  p.  181.  See  aI/o  the  Duke  0/ Holftein'j  Tra- 
veU.  ibid.  p.  36. 

"  Jius's 


The  ATH  AN  ASIAN  CREED.  5^3 

"_/?^/s  Creed,  or  fings  certain  Hymns,  and  St.  Chryfo/lom's 
»'  Homily.  In  another  Treatifc  intituled,  of  the  antient  (ind 
modern  Religion  of  the  Mufcovites,  written  m  French,  and  printed 
at  Cologne  1698,  and  fincc  tranflated  h\to  Englijlj,  there  is  this 
Account  of  the  Mtif coxites ;  tliat  "  They  recei\c  the  Creed  of 
"  the  Apofiles,  and  That  of  Nice^  and  Atha,nafius  ^  Thefe  two 
Teftimonies  are  undoubtedly  llifficient,  fo  far  as  concerns 
Mufcovy.  Now,  the  Mufcovites  received  their  Religion,  and 
their  Orders  from  the  Patriarch  of  Confiantinople,  about  the  Xth 
Century,  or  Beginning  of  the  Xlth  :  And  their  receiving  of 
this  Creed  will  be  a  prefumptive  Argument  in  favor  of  it's 
Reception  at  Conftmtinople  alfo,  if  there  be  no  evident  Reafon 
againft  it.  That  the  Mufcovites  did  not  receive  the  Creed  from 
the  Latins,  but  from  the  Ceeks,  is  very  plain,  becaufe  their 
Copies  of  the  Creed  are  without  the  Article  of  the  Proceflion 
from  the  Son.  ^  For  They  pretend  that  the  Latins  have  interpo- 
lated the  Creed,  appealing  to  their  own  uncorrupted  Copies ; 
and  they  blame  the  Latins,  farther,  for  inferring  the  Filioque  in- 
to the  Nicene  ^  From  what  hath  been  faid  it  appears  to  be  cer- 
tain  Fad,  that  the  Mufcovites  receive  the  Athanafian  Creed  : 
How  long  they  have  had  it,  or  how  far  fhort  of  700  years, 
(reckoning  from  the  Time  that  Chriflianity  was  receiv'd,  or 
reftored  amongft  them)  I  cannot  fay.  I  Ihould  obferve  that 
x\\Q  A^ufcovites  always  perform  their  Service  in  their  o'wnFulgar 
Tongue,  as  is  allowed  on  all  Hands  ^  :  Since  then  the  Athana- 
fian Creed  is  a  part  of  their  Service,  They  muft  have  had  a 

a  Harris'^  ColUB.  of  Travels.  Vol.  i.  p.  238    See  alfo  t^,  240.  241. 

ife  Vid.  Tentzel.  Judic.  Erudit.  p.Vf  i. 

c  See  Harris  I'^/V/.  p.  240. 

d  In  caeteris  autem  Regionibus,  videl'cet  in  Servia,  Myfia,  Bofnia,  Bulgaria,  Rujfa  ml- 
nori  Regi  Foloni^^  fubdita,  in  Volhinia,  Fodalia,  &  parte  quadam  LituanU,  aliifque  finiti- 
mis  provinciis,  ritu  Gr.o^o  divinum  pcragiturofficium,  tranflatis  Grsfcorum  Typicis  xnScla- 
"jonicam  Linguam.  Rofdem  GricosRitus,  cadem  Lingua,  fervant  Mofcoviu,  quorum  Regio 
:Ruffia  major,  feu  Roxolania  nuncupatur  &c.  Bona  de  Divin.  PfaliDod.  c.  18.  Seft.  17.  p. 
911.  F/</.  etiam  UJfer.   Hiftor.  Dogmat.  p.  246. 

Armeni  {\xo  quoque  nativcf  fermcme  dudum  facra  celebrant,  turn  oui  Orthodoxam 
Fjdem  rcti^nuerunt,  turn  Jacobite,  ut  Mofcoviu  feu  Rutheni,  Conftantinopolitans  fedi  fub- 
jedti,  Rsff^co;  &  a'ii  quidam  de  quibus  pauca  fcimus.  Renaudot.  Liturs.  Orient.  Vol.  i* 
Diflertat.  6.  p.  43.  ^ 

Verfam 


5-4  ANTIENr  RECEPTION  of 

Ferfion  of  it  in  the  Mufcovite  Language,  which  is  a  Dialed  of 
the  SclavonitDz.  \Vhcrcfoi'c  This  altb,  after  our  Proof  of  the 
Tiling,  may  now  be  added  to  the  other  Verfions  above  men- 
tion'd. 

2.  RuffiHy  as  dirtinguifh'd  from  Aiufcovy^  mull:  mean  Rufjia> 
Minor ^  or  the  Black  Rtijjia^  a  Province  of  Poland.  As  many  as 
there  follow  the  Greek  Rites,  are  of  the  lame  Account  with  the 
Mujcovites  before  fpoken  of:  And  therefore  what  has  been  faid 
Q'i  the  former,  with  refpecl  to  the  ufe  of  the  Athanafian  Creed, 
will  be  applicable  to  thefe  alfoj  and  fo  I  need  not  be  more 
parti<;ular  about  them.  The  Patriarch  of  Alufcovy  ordains  their 
Archbijhop,  who  is  therefore  lubjed  to  Him,  and  follows  the 
fame  Rites  and  Cuftoms :  And  their  Language  is  alfo  a  Dialed 
of  the  Sclavonmn,  like  the  other. 

3.  Servia,  now  a  large  Province  of  the  Turkiflj  Empire,  part 
of  Northern  Turky  in  Europe,  firfl:  received  Chriftianity  about  the 
year  860,  by  the  means  of  Cyril  I  and  Methodius,  who  are  faid 
to  have  invented  the  ScUvonian  Letters ,  and  to  have  trans- 
lated the  Scriptures  into  the  Sclavonian  Tongue.  Cyrill  was 
a  Greek,  and  came  from  Conflantinople  5  And  Methodius  was  a 
Greek  too,  Both  fent  by  the  Greek  Emperor  to  convert  the 
Country;  which  therefore  became  inftrudcd  in  the  GreekY\X\.zs 
and  Religion.  It  is  not  improbable  that  They  fhould  have  the 
Athanafmn  Creed,  as  well  as  the  Mufcovites  and  Rufftam -,  or 
perhaps  before  them,  being  converted  fooner:  And  They  alfb 
muft  have  received  it  from  the  Greeks,  and  not  from  the  Latins, 
becaufe  of  their  varying,  in  the  Article  of  the  Vroceljion^  from 
the  Wejlern  Churches. 

4.  Bulgaria  is  likewife  part  of  Turky  in  Europe,  and  has  been 
fo  from  the  year  1396.  Chriftianity  was  planted  there  in  the 
year  845-  There  were  of  old  great  Difputes  between  the  Two 
Bilhops  of  Rome,  and  Conflantinople,  upon  the  Queftion  to  whofe 
Patriarchate^  the  Bulgarians  did  of  right  belong,  hi  Conclufion, 
about  the  year  870,  the  Greek  Patriarch  prevailed  over  the  Ro^ 
man,  by  the  hitereft  of  the  then  Emperor  of  Co?ifia7itinople. 
The  Bulgarians  of  confequence  fell  to  the  Share  of  the  Greek 
Church, ^and  fo  have  been  educated  in  their  Rites,  and  Culloms. 

Their 


7he    ATH  AN  ASIAN    CREED, 

Their  Language  is  a  Dialed  of  the  Sclavonm?^^,  in  which  They 
perform  their  Sacred  Offices :  And  therefore,  if  they  malce  ufc 
of  the  Atharmfidn  Creed,  They  mufl  be  fuppofed  to  have  it 
m  their  own  Vulgar  Tongue.  I  have  no  particular  Evidence, 
of  their  ufmg  it,  beyond  what  has  been  mention'd  from  Caz^a- 
novius,  and  the  Romi^  Writers;  which  yet  feems  to  be  fuffici- 
ent,  fince  it  has  been  fully  proved  that  it  is  ufed  in  Mufco-oy,. 
and  in  Ru(fi(i,  to  whom  the  Bulgarians  are  Neighbours,  and  with 
whom  they  conform  in  their  other  religious  Rites  derived 
from  the  fame  Fountain,  namely,  the  Conftantinopolitan  Greeks. 

5.  It  remains  then,  that  we  coniider   the  Fad  in  refped  of 
Conftar^tinople    it  felf,  and   the  Greek  Church  there:    For,  This 
alfo,  as  we  have  feen,  has  been  named  with  Others,  as  receivincr 
the  Athanafian  Creed.     Genebrard  is  pofitive  in  it,  and  gives  ut 
the  very  Creed  it  felf,  which  the  Cmftantinoplitans,  as  He  fays, 
ufe  and  recite ^     He  wrote  in   the  year  1569.    The  Truth  of 
his   Report   is  very  much  doubted,  becaufe  the   Forrrt,  which 
He  exhibits,  acknowledges  the  Proceffion  from  the  Son,  which 
the  Conftantinopolitans  admit  not :  And  even  Thofe  who,  as  be- 
fore feen,  allert,  or  allow  that  They  receive  this  Creed,'  yet  at 
the  fame   Time   intimate  that   it  is  not  the  intire  Creed,  but 
curtailed  in  That  Article.   However,  Genebrard  might  be  in  the 
right,  as  to  the  main  Thing,  that  the  Conftantinopolitans  do  re- 
ceive the  Creed,  tho'  miftaken  in  the  particular  Form :  Or  pof= 
:fibly  fome   Latiniz,ing  Greeks  at  Conftami?wple  might   have  one 
Form,  and  the  reft  another,  and   thus  all   will  be   well.     But 
let  us  inquire   what  further   Evidence  there  is  of  this  Creed's 
havmg  been   ever  received  at  Conftantinople^  and  by  the  Greeks 
prdj)erly  fo  called.   An  Ai^ument  thereof  may  be  drawn  from 
the  Greek  Copies  that   vary  from  the  Latin,  in  the  Article  of 
Procellion.     For,  who  fhouid  draw   up,  and  curtail  the  Greek 
Copies  but  the  Greeks  ?  And  why  fhouid  They  be  at  the  trou- 
ble of  correcling   (as  They  will  call  it)  the  Creed,  if  They  did 
not  receive  \u    A  fecond  Argument  may   be  drawn  from  the 
Cieeds  bemg  found  in  the  Horologia  belonging  to  the  Greeks, 

Gr'JeT/unt^rre^lr'V  -^'^r^'/^'^^i^  ^''quantulum  imnmtatis,  Confi,nuno^dUani  fie 
urxce  legunt,  &  reataat.  Gmehanl.  m  Svmb.  Athan.  p,  i.j. 

that 


i>f 


^C  ANTIENT  RECEPTION    of 

that  is,  in  their  Breviaries  (as  \vc  fliould  call  them)  their  Books 
of  Service  tor  the  Canonicil  Hours.  How  Ihould  the  Creed 
come  in  there  j  unlefs  the  Greeks  received  it  into  their  Sacred 
Offices  ?  As  to  the  Fad,  riiihop  UJher's  Copy  found  in  fuch  a 
Brcviarjy  is  a  fiifficient  Evidence :  And  it  is  plain  from  the 
Copy  it  felf,  that  it  was  no  Latmiz.ing  Greek  that  made  it,  or 
ufed  it  5  fince  the  Proceflion  from  the  Son  is  ftriick  out.  Fur- 
ther, This  Horologion  belong'd  to  a  Monk  of  ConjLi^ntinople '  j 
which  argues  the  Reception  of  the  Creed  in  That  very  City: 
And  as  a  Token  of  their  Efteem  of  it,  and  Value  for  it,  it  is 
afcribed  to  the  Nicene  Council  it  felf  j  which  all  the  Greeks  re- 
ceive and  refped  with  the  greateft  Veneration.  From  hence 
then  it  is  plain  that  the  Cotijldntinopolitdn  Greeks  (fomc  of  them 
at  leaft)  receive,  or  have  received  This  Creed,  but  with  fomc 
Alterations  proper  to  their  pecdliar  Tenets  in  oppofition  to  the 
Latins.  This  Fad,  of  the  Confi-antifiopolitans  their  receiving  Tiiis 
Creed,  might  be  farther  proved  from  the  CofifeJJio?i  of  Metro- 
phanes  Critopulus  (in  the  year  1620,  publilhed  in  1667.^)  who 
admits  the  Creed,  and  looks  upon  it  as  owing  to  a  very  par- 
ticular Providence,  that  the  Greek  Copies  (as  He  fuppofes)  have 
been  preferved  pure  and  entire,  while  the  Latin  ones  have  been 
corrupted,  or  interpolated.  We  find  by  Nicolaus  Hydruntinusy 
above  cited,  that  fuch  .had  been  the  general  Perfwafion  of  the 
Greeks^  500  years  upwards,  in  relation  to  This  Creed  j  not  re- 
jedine  the  Greedy  but  the  Latin  Interpolation  only,  as  they 
take  It  to  be. 

Which  when  I  confider,  refleding  withal  how  the  Mufco- 
vites,  RuJJians^  &c.  (who  derived  their  Religion  from  the  Greeks 
fmce  the  IXth  Century)  have  all  come  into  this  Creed,  (only 
ftriking  out  the  Proceilion  from  the  Son)  and  that  no  good 
Account  can  be  given  of  fuch  Agreement,  but  that  They  all 
received  the  Ihme  Form  Vx'hen  they  firft  received  their  Reli- 
gion 5  1  fay,  when  I  confider,  and  compare  thefe  Things  toge- 

a  In  Thecarr,  Conflantinopolirani  Monachi,  Grxcorum  Hymnorum  Horologio  {Z-Ravio 
tiortro  ex  Orienie  hue  advecJo)  Symbolum  Hoc,  eo  quo  pofl:  fiiiem  hujus  Diatribs  cernitur 
intcrpolatum  nnodo,  Nic^m  Synocio  adlcriptiim rcpcri  8<c.  Ujfer.  de  Svmb.  p.  i. 

b  Metrophjnis  Critopuli,  Frotfifyngeli  Conftantinopolitani  ' O (jis>^oylct,  ry,i  ivaTrAnxi-;  ik- 
«A):(n«;-cdit.  Helmftad.  w  /^x.o,2i  Jostnn,  Horntiio:  Vid.  cap.  i.  p.  ib.  apud  Ten/zel.p-  150. 

ther, 


the  ArUANASJAN  CREED.  ^j 

ther,  it  cannot  but  give  me  a  Sufpicion,  that  This  Creed  had 
been  received  by  the  Greeks  foon  after  their  firft  Difputcs  with 
the  Lafms  about  the  Trocefjion  j  only  They  took  care  to  ftrike 
out  a  part  of  it,  hoping  to  folve  all  by  charging  the L^'ms  with 
Interpolation. 

However  This  be,  not  to  infift  upon  a  bare  Conjecture  with- 
out antient  Records  to  confirm  it,  one  Thing  is  certain,  and, 
I  think,  hath  been  proved  abundantly,  that  the  profefs'd  Greeks^ 
even  under  the  Patriarch  of  Conjlantmople,  have  in  former  Times 
received,  and  ftill  do  receive  tiiis  Creed,  with  fuch  Alterations, 
or  Corredions  as  are  proper  to  their  Principles :  And  fo  I  un- 
derftand  Dr.  Covel^,  where  He  fays,  fpeaking  of  wliat  is  done 
amongft  the  Greeks-,  that  Athanafius's  Creed  is  owned,  as  corrupted x, 
that  is,  with  fuch  Corruptions  as  the  Greeks  have  made  to  it. 
Upon  the  whole,  therefore,  I  cannot  but  clofe  in  with  thofe 
many  learned  Romfinifis  who  have  affirm'd,  and  dill  do  affirm, 
that  This  Creed  is  received  both  by  Greeks  and  Latins.  If  the 
Exprellion  be  thought  too  general,  fince  it  is  certain  that  the 
Creed  is  rejeded  by  innumerable  Greeks,  or  more  properly 
Orientdifis,  in  Afia  and  Africa ;  as  the  Cophtes,  and  Nubians,  and 
Abaffines,  and  Maronites,  Armenians,  Nejlorians,  &c.  I  fay,  if 
this  be  objected  j  it  is  to  be  confider'd,  that  the  Romanifts,  un^ 
der  the  name  of  Greeks,  mean  generally  the  Orthodox  Greeks  only, 
the  Melchite  Greeks,  or  as  many  as  hold  Communion  with  the 
Patriarch  of  Conjiantinople  -,  making  no  Account  of  the  reft,  as 
being  by  their  Herefics  cut  off  from  the  Church,  and  there- 
fore of  little  or  no  Confi^eration  ^  Now,  in  this  Senfe,  it  is 
cxcufable  enough  to  fay,  that  the  Creed  is  received  both  by 
Greeks,  and  Latins. 

To  Sum  up   what  hath  been   faid  of  the  Reception   of  this 

a  Covel:  Account  of  the  Greek  Church,  pref.  p.  9,  To  vphich  I  may  add  a  Remark  of  the 
learned  Dr.  Hickes,  that  This  Creed,  tho'  of  an  uncertain  Author,  was  for  it's  excellent 
Compofure,  received  into  thcGreck,  and  Lati?i  Churches.     Hickes.  Serin.  Vol.  2.  p.  ijf. 

b  Attamen  hoc  3svi  (ub  Orientalis  EcclefU  nomine  diverfarum  Nationum  Orien'alium 
Eccleua;  venunt;  quaz  hcet  a  Gr^ca  fuam  cognofcant  Originem,  propter  camen  variaruni 
Hxrefium  coiluviem,  &  alia  prseter  mores  Chriftianos  pcffima  introdiKSla,  a  Gr^ca  longif- 
fime  abfunt.  Grui  enim  illius  Religionis  Homines,  ta'nquam  a  fe  disjunftos,  arque  im- 
probiffimos,  arcent,  &  deteftantur.  Leo  Allac,  de  perpec  Confcnf.  Ecc).  Occid.  5c  Orieut. 

N  Creed, 


^S  ANTIENT  RECEPTION  of    &c. 

Creed:  From  the  foregoing  Account  it  appears  that  it's  Re- 
ception has  been  both  general^  and  antient.  It  hatn  been  re- 
ceived by  Greeks  and  LatinSj  all  over  Europe:  And  if  it  hath 
been  little  known  among  the  African,  and  yljidn  Churches,  the 
like  may  be  laid  of  the  Apojiles  Creed,  which  hath  not  been 
admitted,  icarcc  known,  in  Afric/i,  and  but  little  mAjia'',  ex- 
cept among  the  Armenians,  who  are  laid  to  receive  it  ^  So 
that,  for  generality  of  Reception,  the  Athanajian  Creed  may  vie 
\\'ith  Any,  except  the  Niccne,  or  Conjlantinopolitan,  the  only  ge- 
neral Creed  common  to  all  the  Churches.  As  to  the  A?itiqtaty 
of  it's  Reception  into  xhc  Sacred  Offices,  This  Creed  has  been  re- 
ceived in  feveral  Countries,  France,  Germany,  England,  Italy^  and 
Rome  it  felf,  as  loon,  or  fooner  than  the  Nicene  j  which  is  a 
high  Commendation  of  it,  as  gaining  Ground  by  it's  o\^'n  In- 
trinfick  worth,  and  without  the  Authority  of  any  general  Coun- 
cil to  inforoc  it.  And  there  is  this  Thing  further  to  be  faid 
for  it,  that  while  the  Nicene  and  Apojlies  Creeds  have  been 
growing  up  to  their  prefent  Perfection  in  a  Courle  of  years, 
or  Centuries  of  years,  and  not  complcated  till  about  the  year 
600,  This  Creed  was  made  and  perfected  at  once,  and  is 
more  antient,  if  confider'd  as  an  i?uire  Eorm,  than  either  of  the 
other ;  having  received  '  it's  full  Perfection,  while  the  others 
wanted  theirs.  No  confiderable  Additions  or  Defalcations  have 
been  made  to  it,  ("it  has  needed  nonej  fince  it's  firil:  compiling, 
till  of  late  years,  and  in  the  Greek  Church  only  5  which  yet  arc 
fo  far  from  correcting  or  amending  the  Form,  that  they  have 
rendred  it  lb  much  thclefs  perfed  :  And  the  only  way  of  reflo- 
rin[i  it  to  it's  Perfeftion,  is  to  reftore  it  to  what  it  was  at  the 
liril.     But  I  pafs  on. 

a  Il!o  quo  nos  utimur,  uti  caercri  Oricntalcs,  carent  ' Habeffni)  hiiid  levi  indicio,  A- 
poftolos  illius  Autorcs  non  elTe,  quamvis  dodrinx  raiione  Apo/lol:cum  redte  vocefur. 
ludo'.ph.  Hijii  M:hiof>.  1.   ?.  c.  f.  n.  1 9. 

bymbolum  ncc  ab  Apojloln,  ncc  a  Synodo  ulla  j^cncrali  faftum  cil :  Adhxc,  nee  in  G>«y . 
see  iri  Often',  ullis  Ecrldiis  obtinuit,  fed  in  Ecclcfii  Roin^na.   Suicer.  Ihtjaiir.  p.  J  093. 

b  Sr  Paul  Riciut,  Prefau  State  of  the  Greek  Church,  p.  409 

C  H  A  P. 


>fi 


CHAP.     VII. 

Of  the  lime  when,  and  Tlace  where  the  Creed  was 

compofed, 

'A  V  I  N  G  obferved  when,  and  where  this  Creed  hath  been 

received,  wc  may  now  afccnd  higher,  and  confidcr  when 

iind  where  it  Avas  made.  Our  Inquiries  here  will  be  in  fome 
meafure  dark,  and  conjeduralj  ftrong  Probabilities  will  perhaps 
be  as  much  as  we  can  reach  to  :  Wiiich  made  it  the  more  necefla- 
ry  for  me  to  begin,  as  I  have,  at  the  lower  end,  where  Things  are 
more  plain,  and  clear,  in  hopes  to  borrow  fome  Light  to'^con- 
dud  our  fearches  into  what  remains  ftill  dark,  and  obfcure. 
Whatever  we  have  to  advance  in  this  Chapter,  muft  reft  upon 
Two  Things,  i.  Upon  External  Tefiimony  from  Antient  Cita- 
tions, Manufcripts,  Comments,  Verfions,  and  the  like,  fuch  as 
have  been  previouQy  laid  down.  2.  Upon  the  Interfutl  chara- 
ckrs  of  the  Creed. 

I .  To  begin  with  the  External  Evidence  ;  Our  Antient  Tefti^ 
monies,  above  recited,  carry  up  the  Antiquity  of  the  Creed  as 
high  as  the  year  670,  if  the  firft  of  them  be   admitted  for  ge- 
nuine} as  it  reafonably  may,  not withftanding  fome  Objedions. 
Our  Ma?mfcripts,  now  extant,  will  bring  us  no  higher  than  700,* 
but  fuch  as  have  been   known  to.  be  extant   may  reach  ud  to 
660,  or  even  600.  This  muft  be  thought  veryconfiderable  to  as 
many  as  know  how  great  a  Rarity  a  Manufcript  of  eleven  hundred, 
or  of  a  Thoufand  years  Date,  is;  and  how  few  Books,  or  Traces 
tl>ere  are  that  can  boaft  bf  Manufcripts  of  fuch  Antiquity.  The 
Injuries  of  Time,  ofDuft,  and  of  Moths,  and  above  all,  the  Ravages 
of  War,  and  Deftrudions  of  Fire  have  robb'd  us  of  the  antient  Mo- 
numents, and  left  us  but  very  thin  Remains  3  that  there  isfcarce 
luch  a  Thmg  to  be  found  as  a  Manufcript  of  the  IVth  Centu- 
ry, higher  none  at  all,  of  the  Vth  very   few,  and  even  of  the 
Vlth  not  many.     So  that  our  want  of  Manulcripts  bevond  the 
Vlth,  or  Vllth,  Century  is  no  argument  againft  the  ^Antiquity 
-ot  the  Creed,  however  certain :  an   Argument  may    be  drawn 

N  2  '  from 


100  7he   ATHANASIAN   CREED 

from  Thofe  wc  have,  Co  far  as  They  reach.  But,  beyond  all 
This,  wc  have  a  Comment  of  the  Vlth  Century,  of  the  year 
570,  or  thereabout;  and  this  certain,  and  unqueftionable : 
\^'hich  may  fuperfede  all  our  Difputes  about  the  Antient  Tejii- 
monicSj  or  AIa,?mfcripts,  of  more  doubtful  Authority.  Here  then 
we  fiand  upon  the  foot  of  external  Evidence :  The  Creed  was, 
about  the  year  5  70,conriderable  enough  to  be  commented  up- 
on, like  the  lords-Prayer,  and  Apoftles-Creed,  and  together  with 
Them.  Here  is  certain  Evidence  for  the  Time  fpecificdj  and 
prefurnpive  for  much  greater  Antiquity.  For,  who  can  imagine 
that  This  Creed,  or  indeed  any  Creed,  fhould  grow  into  fuch 
Repute  of  a  fudden,  and  not  rather  in  a  Courfe  of  Years,  and 
a  long  Trad  of  Time?  Should  we  allow  100,  or  150  years  for 
it,  tho'  it  would  be  Con'^eclure  only,  yet  it  would  not  be  un- 
realbnable,  or  improbable  Conjecture.  But  we  will  let  This 
Matter  reft  here,  and  proceed  to  our  other  Marks  of  Di- 
redion: 

2.  The  Interned  Characters  of  the  Creed.  The  Creed  con- 
tams  two  principal  Doftrines  ;  one  of  the  Trinity,  and  the  other 
of  the  Incarnation.  PofTibly  from  the  Manner  wherein  thefe 
Do(ftrines  arc  there  laid  down,  or  from  the  Words  whereby  they 
are  exprefs'd,  we  may  be  able  to  fix  the  true  Date  of  the  Creed, 
or  very  nearly  at  leaft ;  certain  however  thus  far,  that  it  muft 
be  fomewhere  above  570. 

From  the  Dodrine  of  the  Incarnation^  as  exprefs'd  in  this 
Creed,  we  may  be  confident  that  it  is  not  earlier  than  the  Rife 
of  the  Apollinarian  Herely,  which  appear'd  firft  about  the  year 
360,  and  grew  to  a  head  about  370,  or  a  little  Later.  This 
Creed  is  io'  minute  and  particular  againft:  Thofe  Hereticks 
(without  naming  them,  as  it  is  not  the  way  of  the  Creed  to 
'  name  Any)  obviating  every  Cavil,  and  precluding  every  Eva- 
fion,  or  Subterfuge,  that  one  cannot  fuppofe  it  to  have  been 
written  before  the  Depths  of  That  Hcrefy  were  perfedly  feen 
into,  and  the  whole  Secrets  of  the  Party  difclofed:  which  we 
have  no  reafon  to  think  could  be  before  the  year  370,  if  fo 
foon.  This  Confidcration  alone  is  to  me  a  fufficient  Confu- 
tation of  Thofe  who  pretend,  that  Athanajlm  made  this  Creed 

cither 


WHEN  AND  WHERE   M4BE.  jo, 

either  during  his  Banifliment  at  Treves,  whicb  ended  in  the 
year  338,  or  during  his  Stay  at  Rome  in  the  year  343 ;  or  that 
He  prefented  it  to  Pope  Julms,  or  Vo^q  Liberim,  who  were  Both 
dead  before  the  year  367. 

I  muft  add,  that  Eftphmius  *  marks  the  very  Time  when  the 
Creeds  firft  began  to   be  inlarged  in  Oppofition  to  the  Apolli- 
rnirim  Herefy  5  namely  the  Xth  year  of  Vdentinim  and  Vdem, 
and  the  Vlth   of  Grmiln  (it   fhould   be  Vllth)  which  falls  in 
with  A.D.  373,  the  very  laft  year  of  Athamftuss  Life,  accord- 
ing to  thofe  that  place  his  Death  the  lateft  5  fome  fay,  He  died 
a  year  or  two  fooner.     If  therefore  He  made  this  Creed  at  all, 
it  muft  be  about   that  Time.     And,    indeed,  were  there   no 
ftrongcr  Objeaions  againft  t\iz,  Antiquity  of  the  Creed,  or  againft 
it's   being  made   by  Athm^ifms,  than   the  common   Objedion 
about  the  fuppofed   Condemnation  of  the  Nefiorian  and  Euty- 
chian  Here/ies  5  I  fhould  fcarce  think  it  at  all   improbable  that 
Athmafms  fhould   be  the  Author,  admitting  that  He  lived  to. 
the  year  373.     For  Epiphmiuss  larger  Creed  made  about  that 
Time,  appears  to  me   as  full   and   exprefs  againft  Both  thofe 
Herefies,  as  the  Athanajian  can  be  fuppofed  to  be,  and  in  fome 
refpeds  more  fo :  And  yet  Neither  of  thofe  Herefies  were  then 
in  Being,  nor  for  many  years  after.  But,  there  are  many  other 
reafons  which  convince  me,  that  the  Athanafim  Creed  muft  be 
placed  lower  than  thi^  Time.     I  take  Epiphmim's  larger  Creed 
to  have  been  the  firft  that  inlarged  the  Article  of  the  Incarna- 
tion, in  oppoiition  chiefly  to  the  Apollinarians :  And  That  Creed 
being  drawn  up,    as  Epiphmius  exprefsly  tcftifies,  by  the   join£ 
Advice  of  dl  the  Orthodox^  Bifbops,  and  the  wbok  Catholick  Churchy 
became  a  kind  of  Rpde,  or  Model  for  moft  of  the  Creeds  that- 
came  after  5  among  which  I  reckon  the  Athmafmn. 

For,  from   the  Dodrine   of  the  Trinity,  as  particularly,  and 
minutely  drawn   out  in  That   Creed,  it  is  to   mc  very   plain, 

w  u  "^^  ^^  ^°"^^  ^^^^^  ^^^^^  ^^^^^'  ^^^^  Crci^^  of  Epiphmius :. 
which  will  evidently  appear  to  any  Man  who  will  but  be  at 
the  Pains  to  compare  the  Two  Creeds  together, 

a  Epiphan.  Ancoratt  c.  1  a  i .  p,  1 2,|, 


102  7he   ATUAKASIAN    CREED 

One  very  obfcrvable  particular  is  the  manner  of  cxprcflingthe 

U^iity  by  a  fingular  Adjective  j  t7v«5  ,£tcrf.HS,u}?us  immeiiJltSj  ^a.  One 

et criifily  one  incomer ehenjible J  tScc.  and  the  condemning  the  Exprcf- 

fion  of  Tres  dterm,  Tres  imme?iji,  &c.  The  Greeks  never  laid  down 

any  luch  Rule  of  Exprellion,  never  obferved  or  followed  it,  but 

have  fometimcs  run  counter  to  it^j  meaning  indeed  the  very  fame 

Thing,  but  not  fo  expreffing  it.    As  to  the  Lutins^  we  Ihall  find 

none  of  them  (at  leall,  I  have  not  obferved  any)  coming  into 

That  way  of  Expreirion  hQ.io\:c  Ambrofe'^  ^w^Taufiifms'^  (in  the 

years  381,  and  384)   wlao  are  the  'ii'ii^  that  ufe  it,  and  that  but 

once,  or  very  fparingly;  not  repeating  and  inculcating  it,  like 

the  Athan.'iji/m   Creed,  nor  leaving  it  deftitute    of  Explication. 

But  St.  Attjlin^  afterwards,  in  his   Books   of  the  Trinity,  in  the 

Vth  efpecially,  inlarges  in  ]ufl:iiication  of  this  Rule  of  Expref- 

fion,  and  is  full  and  copious  upon  it.     His  Proofs,  liluftrations. 

Example,  and  Authority  gave  new  Strength  and  Credit  to  this 

Rule,  which  might  then  pals  current,  and  become  fit  to  appear, 

without    farther    Explication,    in   a   Creed.     For    This   Rcafon, 

principally,  I  incline  to  think  that  This  Creed   was  not  made 

before  St.  Auftins  Books   of  the  Trinity   were  puhlick  (which 

was  not  till  416)  or  not  before  420,  or  thereabout,  to  allow 

fome  Time   for   his  Works  to  be  read,  confidcr'd,  approved, 

and  to  gain  a  general  Eftcem.  If  it  be  faid,  that  St.  Aufiin  might 

as  well  copy  from  this  Creed,  as  the  Creed  from  Him  5  1  fay, 

No :  For,  the   Reafon  is  diiferent.     Creeds  and  other  the  like 

Formularies  which  are  to  be  put  into  every  ones  Hands,  and  fpread 

round  about,  ought  not  to  contain  any  thing  till   it  has  been 

maturely  weigh'd,  long  confidered,  and  fully  explain'd,  as  well 

a  Tp<5r  eixHfuv  uTTHfo*  <fVfjL,<ptj:u)i.  Naiisnz.  in  Bapt.  Orat.  40.  p.  668. 

b  Ergo  fanftus  Parcr,  fandtus  Filius.  famflus  &  Spiriru*:  Sanftus:  fed  non  tres  Sanfli, 
quia  unus  eft  Dcus  fanrtus,  unus  eft  Dcminu?.  Una  eft  crenim  ven  San<f>iras,  licut  una 
eft  vcn  Divinitas ,  una  ilia  vera  Saiidtiras  naturalis.  Ami/rof..  de  Sp.  S.  lib.  3.  c.  16. 
p.  6?8. 

c  ScJ  ne  iIhos  o/»«/'/'fl/p«;ej  intclligas,  prrcavcndum  eft:  licet  cnim  &  Parer  fit  omni- 
potens.  Sc  Filius,  tamen  unm  eft  ommpotens,  ficut  &  unus  eft  Dcus;  quia  Patris  £c  Filii 
eademomnipotcntia  cft,licut  &  eaddm  dciras  ^c— — Oftcnditur  Unitas  Divinitatis  in  Patre 
&  Filio,  fjcut  &  OmnipotentU,  &  quicqm'd  omnino  Dtvim  Siilft.vuU  eft;  hoc  folo  dif- 
fcrens  a  Patre  Filius,  quod  ille  Pater  eft,  &  Hie  Filius.  Fauftin.  de  Trinit.  c.  3.  p.  125, 
1*4. 

as 


WHEN   AND  WHERE    MADE.  loy 

as  proved,  and  generally  acknowledged  bv  the  Churches  of 
Chrift.  It  is  therefore  much  more  •  cafonable  to  beheve  that 
St.  Atifiins  Writings  fhouid  go  firfl,  and  a  generd  Approbation 
of  them  in  That  particular ;  and  then  the  Creed  might  con- 
veniently follow,  the  way  being  now  open'd  for  it*. 

I  may  obferve  the  like  of  another  Article  of  the  Athmafmn 
Creed j  namely,  the  PrQceffion  fro?n  the  Son:  A  Dodrine  enter- 
tain'd  indeed  both  by  Greeks  and  Latins  (as  may  appear  by  the 
Teftimonies  commonly  cited  for  that  purpofe)  and  exprefs'd 
frequently  i7z  Senfej  tho'  rarely  in  Terms  5  but  llich  as  came  not 
to  be  much  inculcated,  or  infilled  upon  till  St.  Aujiin  under- 
took to  aifert  and  clear  it,  and  to  render  it  lefs  hablc  to  any 
Difpute  hereafter.  For  which  rcafon  the  modern  Greeks  have 
look'd  upon  Him,  in  a  manner,  as  the  leather  of  that  Dodrine, 
being  at  leaft  the  principal  Man  that  brought  it  into  Vogue ; 
however  weakly  they  may  pretend  that  He  invented  it.  Thus 
far  is  certain,  that  his  elaborate  Arguments,  and  folid  Proofs, 
from  Scripture,  of  the  Truth,  and  of  the  Importance  of  the 
Doctrine,  made  it  pafs  the  more  readily  5  and  gave  it  Credit 
and  Authority  enough  to  have  a  place  in  a  (landing  Creed,  or 
Confeffion:  Which  is  to  me  another  Argument  of  the  Creed's 
being  made  after  St.  AtiJHns  V/ritings  were  wtU  kiv)wn  in  the 
World,  in  That  Place,  at  leaft,  where  the  Creed  was  made. 
From  the  Premifes  then  I  prefume  to  infer,  that  the  Athanafian 
Creed  is  not  earlier  than  the  year  420. 

I  will  next  endeavour  to  Ihow,  that  it  cannot  reafonably  be 
fet  lower  than  the  Eutjchim  Times,  not  later  than  the  Council; 
o^Chalcedon,  or  than  the'^year  451  :  And  This  alfo  I  lliall  at- 
tempt from  the  internal  CharacJers  of  the  Creed,  in  like  man- 
ner as  above. 

c  Combefis,  /peaking  to  this  PointJeemJ  incUnabh  to  fuppofeihut  .?/.  Auftin  IimI  borrow ^ 
from  /^e  Creed  i  but  correcliyig  Himfelf  aftervp.irds,He  fuppofes  rather  that  //^e  Creed  borr^roe?. 
from  Him.    Hts  words  are  thefe. . 

Ejus  Symholi,  feu  FcrmuU  Fidri,  Antiquitatem   prcdunt    iUi   ejus  -vei-fiadi   qms  totidan 
-vefbts  Kaoet  K\ig\\^.  in  Libris    de  Trmitsie  ^.  alibi,  qnos  non  almrJe  de'ump/ijfe  vidintu* 

(juam  ex  eo  SymbAo ^cine^uam  nihil  vet  at  dicere  ipfitm  potau  Symbolt    Auftorem  ex 

Auguftino,  aliiji^ne  P.p./jtaCcn/arcinaffe.  Comien/,  not.  in   Man.  Calec,  AusSlar.  Tom.  2= 
p-  296. 

I.  Thera, 


^04  11^^   ATHANASIAN  CREED 

1.  Thci'c  is  not  a  Word  in  the  Creed  dircdly  and  plainly' 
exprefling  Tii>o  N/itures  in  Chrift,  or  excluding  0}7e  Nature : 
Wiiich  Crit/cil  Terms,  againfl  the  Error  of  EutycheSj  are  very 
rarely,  or  never  omitted  in  the  Creeds  drawn  up  in  the  Euty- 
chi:ir^  Times,  or  the  Times  immediately  following.  'Tis  true, 
there  is,  in  the  Athanafian  Creed,  what  may  be  fufficicnt  to  ob- 
viate, or  preclude  the  Futychian  Herely  •-,  as  there  is  alfo  in  the 
hrger  Creed  oi  Epiphanius  A.  D.  373,  and  in  the  Works  of 
Naz^ianzen  2i]\<\  Ambrofcj  about  the  year  3805  and  in  PeUgiuss 
Creed  A.  D.  4175  and  in  the  writings  of  Atijlin^  and  Vincen- 
tim  oiLerins^  Both  before  the  year  43  5,  many  years  before  Eu- 
tyches.  The  ftrongeft  Exprellion  of  the  Creed  againft  the  Eu- 
tychiamj  and  which  has  been  moft  frequently  urged  in  this  Cafe, 
is,  IJnus  omtuno,  non  confufione  Suhjla?iti£-,  fedunitdte  PerfonA:  One 
altogether  J  not  by  Confufion  of  Subjlmice,  but  by  unity  of  Perfon : 
Which  yet  is  ufed  by  Vincent'ms^  and  by  Aujiir^  too,  almofl  in 
Terms.  And  if  this  be  no  reafon  for  making  Either  of  thofe 
Authors,  or  the  Trails  afcribed  to  them,  later  than  Eutyches-, 
why  fhall  the  like  ExpreHion  be  of  any  Force  in  refpect  to  the 
Athanafian  Creed?  There  is  nothing  in  the  Creed  but  what 
was  common  and  ordinary  in  Catholick  \Vriters  before  the 
Eutychian  Times :  But  there  are  vvanting  thofe  criticd,  diftin- 
guifhing  Terms  of  Two  noctures,  or  One  nMure,  neceilary  to  be 
inferted  in  the  Creeds  after  thefe  Times,  and  never,  or  very 
rarely  omitted  ^  which  is  one  reafon,  and  a  very  confiderable 
one,  for  fetting  the  Date  of  the  Creed  higher  than  451. 

2.  Another  Argument  of  the  fame  thing,  near  akin  to  the 
former,  is,  that  this  Creed  makes  no  mention  of  Chrift  being 
Confuhftant'ial  with  us-,  in  one  Nature,  as  He  is  Confubfldntml  with 
the  Father  in  another:  A  Tenet  exprefsly  held  by  fome  of  the 
Ecclefiaftical  Writers  before  Eutychess  Time ;  but  feldom  or 
iiever  omitted  in  the  Creeds^  or  ConfeJJions  about  that  Time,  or 
after.     To.be  convinced  of  the  Truth  both  of  this,  and  of  the 

a  Unus  autem,  non— — Divinitatis  8c  Hurr.anitatis  confufionc,  fed  unitate  perfona:. 
Vincent.  Lerin.  c.  ly.  p.  58. 

b  Idem  Deus  qui  Homo;  non  confu/ione  nzt^irx,  fid  unitate  ferfon*.  Auguft.  Tom.  V. 
p.  8Sj.     . 

preceding 


WEEK  AND  JVHERE  MADE,  lo; 

preceding  Article,  one  need  but  look  into  the  Creeds  and  For- 
muUries  of  thofe  Times  :  Namely,  into  That  oiTunibms  of  Spmn 
in  447j  of  FUvian  of  Confiantinople,  as  alfo  of  Pope  Leo  iu 
449,  of  the  chdcedon  Council  in  45  i,  of  Pope  FelixViS.  in  485, 
and  Anajiafms  II  in  496,  and  of  the  Church  oi  Alex^ndrid  in  the 
fame  year :  As  aUb  into  Thofe  of  Pope  HormlfdaSy  and  the 
Churches  of  Syria,  and  FulgentiuSj  and  tlic  Emperor  Jtifii- 
nian>^  and  Pope  John  II,  and  Pope  PeUgius  I.  within  the  Sixth 
Century.  In  all  which  we  fhall  find  either  exprefs  denial  of 
One  nature  J  or  exprefs  affirming  of  Two  natures^  or  theDod:iine 
of  Chrift's  Confuhftant'mlity  with  us,  or  all  three  together,  tho' 
they  are  all  omitted  in  the  Athanapa-n  Creed.  This  is  to 
me  a  fecond  realbn  for  fettino;  our  Creed  hii^hcr  than  the 
Eutychian  Times. 

3.  I  may   argue  This  point   farther   from   a  Paflage   of  the 
Athannfian    Creed,  running  thus :  One^  not  by  Coriverfion  of  the 
Godhead  into  Flejh,  but  by  taking  of  the  Manhood  into  God.     This 
would  not,  I  conceive,  have  run   in   thefe    words,  or   in    this 
manner,  in  the  Eutychian  Times.     For  tho'  the  Eutychia'ns  were 
fometimcs,  (as  well  as  the  ApoUinarians  often)  charged  with  the 
Dodrine  of  a  Converfion  of  the  Godhead  into  F/eJh  5  yet  nothing 
more  certain  than  that  the  generality  of  them  abfolutcly  difown'd 
and  detcfted  any  fuch  Tenet,  teaching  rather  a  Converfion  of  the 
Manhood  into  God,  juft  the  Reverfe.     And,  by  the  way,  I  would 
here  oifer  it  to  the  learned  Reader  to  confider,  whether  we  may 
not  from  hence  give  a  probable  Account  of  a  very  noted  Va- 
riation obfcrvable  in  many  of  the  moft  antient  Copies  of  this 
Creed,  which  run  thus ;    Unus  autem,  non  converfione  divinitatis 
i^Scarne,  fed  ajjumptione  titimanitatis  in  Deo :  where  there  is  came 
for  carnem,  and  Beo  for  Dcum.  A  flight  Alteration  in  the  Words, 
but  a  very  great  one  in  the  Scnfe.     A  Change  of  the  Godhead 
in  the  Flefo  the  Eutychians  admitted,  by  making  the  tn>o  natures 
become  0/2^;  tho' they  allowed  not  a  Change  into  Flefo :  So  that 
by  this  little  Alteration  of  came  for  carnem,  the  Creed  would 
ftrike  more  diredly  at  the  Eutychian  Principles.     Then  again  as 
to  Deum,    if  that  Reading  was  to   ftand,  the  Creed  inftead  of 
confuting  the   Eutychians   would    fcem   rather   to  tavor  them  j 

O  for 


iQ<S  The   AJHAKASIAN    CREED 

for  They  taught  that  the  Manhood  v^zs  ajjuwed  into  God,  and  that 
in  To  literal  and  llr-cl  a  Senfc  as  really  to  become  Gcd,  or  to 
be  ablbrb'd  and  loft  in  the  divine  Nature,  Both  Natures  becom- 
ing one  div'me  Nature.  Such  a  Conftruclion  might  the  words 
of  the  Creed  be  liable  to.  But  put  Deo  for  Deton,  and  it  is  en- 
tirely defeated :  For  then  the  Senfe  is  not  that  the  Manhood 
is  alllimed  into  Gcd,  but  that  God  aflumed  the  human  Natiu-Cj 
v.hich  is  true,  and  not  liable  to  any  fuch  Milconftruclion  as 
the  other.  However  this  be,  as  to  the  Variation  of  the  Copies, 
and  the  realbn  here  allign'd  for  it  (which  I  offer  only  as  a 
probable  Coniechire  to  be  further  inquired  into)  yet  This  is 
cenain,  that  rhefe  words  of  the  Creed,  according  to  the  com- 
mon Copies,  are  not  lb  cautioufly,  or  accurately  chofcn  as  They 
might,  or  would  have  been,  had  the  Creed  been  drawn  up  after 
the  Eutychijin  Times. 

4.  A  fourth  Argument  may  be  drawn  from  the  Similitude 
in  the  Creed,  running  thus :  As  the  reafonabte  Soul,  and  Flejhy 
is  one  Man  j  fo  God  and  Alan  is  one  Chriji.  This  familiar,  and 
eafy  Comparilbn  was  much  made  ulc  of  by  the  Catholicks, 
down  from  the  Apollmarian  Times,  to  the  Time  of  Eutyhes  : 
By  NazioKzen,  Auftin,  Fincentius,  Claudianus  Mamertus-,  and 
Others.  But  no  iboner  did  the  Eutychians  wreft  the  Comparifon 
to  their  own  Scnle,  pleading  for  One  nature  in  Chrilt,  like  as 
Soul  and  Body  make  One  nature  in  Man,  but  the  Catholicks 
grew  ftrangely  averfe  to  the  Similitude,  and  rarely  made  ufe  of 
it :  Or  when  They  did,  it  was  either  to  dilpute  againft  ir,  and 
condemn  it,  or  elfe  to  guard  and  qualify  it  with  proper  Cau- 
tions and  Reftridions.  Wherefore  it  is  by  no  means  probable 
that  This  Similitude  would  have  been  inferred,  at  fuch  a  Time, 
ui  a  Catholick  Creed,  and  there  left  without  Guard  or  Cau- 
tion, for  the  Eutychians  to  make  an  ill  ufe  of  This  fourth 
Argument  I  take  from  the  learned  and  acute  Le  ,^uien,  whofe 
words  may  be  feen  in  the  Margin'.  And  may  we  not  from  hence 

a  Quod  qoidem  Simile, (^■ao  Thtologus  ctiam,  aliique  Patres  AftWnariftai  confutarunt.tanti 
pofthac  non  fecerunt  infequentis,  feu  quinti  faeculi  dcflnentis  Dodiore^,  ut  iLud  in  ^po- 
jittcne  FiJei  inlercren: ;  cum  Monophyfitt,  Snero  prjercrtim  Duce,  eo  vehcmcntius  contra 
CzthiUiBi  fagnArmt,  ut  unMm  in  Chrifto  naiHram  dTe  ex  Dcitate  8c  Humaaitate  compofi- 

sivc 


IFHEN  AND  INHERE  MADE.  107 

give  a  probable  Gueis  at  the  reafoii  why  the  antient  Manufcript 
of  Treves,  and  the  Colhertine,  copied  from  it,  have  entirely 
omitted  this  Similitude,  throwing  in  a  few  words,  both  before 
and  after,  to  folve  the  Breach,  in  fome  Meafure,  and  to  pre- 
ferve  a  Connexion :  which  Ihows  that  it  was  no  cafual  Oniif- 
fion,  but   made   with .  defign.     But    I  pafs  on. 

Thefe  reafons  convince  me  that  the  Creed  was  not  made  fo  late 
as  the  Council  of  Chdcedon,  but  before  the  year  451.  It  cannot 
therefore  be  afcribed  to  Vigilius  T^pfenfis  in  the  year  484  :  Not 
to  mention  that  the  Phra^feolo^y  of  it  agrees  not  with  That  Wri- 
ter's ufual  manner  of  Exprellion,  as  Le  J^ic/z  hath  obferved*. 
Befides  that  the  principal  reafons  on  which  ^uefiiel  refted  his 
opinion  in  regard  to  That  Author ^  are  now  found  to  have 
been  grounded  on  a  falfe  Prefum prion  of  certain  Works  being 
Figiliuss  which  are  none  of  his^.  And  I  may  add,  that  to 
Me  there  does  not  appear  in  Vigiliuss  Pieces  any  thing  of 
that  Strength,  Clofenefs,  and  Acutenefs,  which  we  find  in  the 
Athnrmfmn  Creed. 

But  I  proceed  to  (how  that  This  Creed  is  earlier  than  even  the 
Times  of  Nejiorius,  or  the  Ephejine  Council  of  the  year  431. 
It  is  certain  that  this  Creed  does  not  condemn  the  Neflorian 
Herefy  in  fuch  full,  direct,  critical  Terms,  as  the  Catholicks 
found  to  be  necellary  againif  the  M^iles  and  Subtilties  of  thofc 
Men.  There  is  not  a  word  of  the  Mother  of  God,  or  of  0?2€ 
Son  only,  in  oppofition  to  Two  Sons,  or  of  God's  being  born,  fuf- 
fering,  dying :  which  kind  of  Exprelllons  the  Creeds  are  full  of 
^fter  Nejl'oritiss  Times,  and   after  the   Council  of  Ephefus,    to 

ta>9  evincerent.  Quinimo  omnes  ingcnii  vires  expllcare  coadi  funt,  ut  varias  difcrepantias 
reperirent  inter  Unionem  Deitatis  cum  Humanitate  in  Chrifto,  &  Unionem  Aniins  cum 
Corpore  in  Homine.  Le  ^hiien.  Diflert.  Damafc.  p.  lo.  Confer  ?etav.  Dogm.  Theol. 
Tom.  V.  1.  5.  c.  9.  10,  ^c. 

a  Sunt  qui  Sufpicenrur  Expofitionem  iflam  Fidei  fuKTe  concinnatam  a  Vigilio  Tapfenji, 
qui  fcripfilTe  exiftimatur  libros  tres  contra  Varimadmn  Arianum:  Sed  ab  illorum  Opinione 
me  dererruit  verfus  ifte,  Unus  ojnntno,  »on  Confufione  Subfiantis,  fed  Umtaie  Per/cm. 
Nam  Vigilius iQL\hr]s  quinque  contra  Eutychem  nufqiiara LTw/Vij/Pw  Verfons,  dicit, fed  paffim, 

&  frequentiffirre  Unionem  VerfonA.-— Cumque  varix  fuperfint  hodie-F/^/V/rT^/)  p«y//Con- 

fefliones  Fidei  de  Trinitate  8c  Incarnatione,  nulla  earum  fimilitudo  8c  Convenientia  cum 
Symholo  Athanafiano ,  quoad  Stylum  animadvertitur.  Le  J^Hitn.  Diflert.  Damafc. 
p.  9. 

b  Vid.  Montf.  Diatrib.  p.  724. 

O  2  guard 


io8  The  ATHAN ASIAN  CREED. 

guard  the  more  certainly  againft  Equivocatwm,  and  to  cxprefs 
the  Catholick  Doclrine  in  ftrong  Terms,  fuch  as  could  not  be 
eluded.  As  to  what  the  Athan^fian  Creed  really  does  exprefs, 
and  is  conceiv'd  to  ftrike  directly  at  the  Nefiorian  Hcrefy ;  it  is 
Demonftration  that  the  words  arc  not  more  full,  or  cxprcfTivc, 
than  may  be  found  in  elder  Creeds,  and  in  the  Fathers  that 
wrote  againft  the  ApollmM'mns  and  others,  before  ever  Neflorius 
was  heard  of*.  I  know  not  how  to  give  my  Reader  a  clear 
and  juft  Idea  of  this  whole  Matter,  but  by  letting  down  in 
Chronological  order  the  Dodrine  of  the  Jncdrnntion^  as  exprefs'd 
in  Catholick  Writings  from  the  Apollmarian  Times  down  to 
the  Nefiormn^  from  the  year  373  to  the  year  431.  One  Thing 
only  1  would  remark  before-hand,  to  make  the  following  Ac- 
count the  clearer,  that  the  ApoUirmrians  really  held  a  Dodlrinc 
very  near  akin  to  That  which  afterwards  was  called  Eutychian ; 
and  They  malicioufly  charged  the  Catholicks  with  That  very 
Dodrinc  which  was  afterwards  called  Neftoridn :  So  that  the 
Catholicks,  in  their  Charge  upon  the  Apoll'maridns,  condemn'd  the 
Emychmn  Dodrine  long  before  Eutyches ;  and,  in  their  Defenfc 
of  themfelves,They  alfo  condemn'd  the  iVlf/?or/;^«  Tenets,  before 
Nefiorius.  I  fhall  firft  juftify  the  Truth  of  This  Remark  in 
Both  it's  parts,  and  then  Ihall  proceed  farther  to  what  I  intend. 
As  to  the  firft  part,  that  the  ApoUinnrUns  held  a  Dodrine 
very  near  akin  to  That  which  was  afterwards  called  EutychUny 
it  is  a  Thing  fo  well  known  that  I  need  not  cite  many  Tefti- 
monies  for  it.  Twas  one  of  the  commoneft  Charges  againft  the 
Entjchims,  that  They  had  revived  the  Herefy  of  the  Apollina- 
ri.-ms  ^  in  fome  confiderable  Branches  of  it :  Petavms  briefly 
fhows  what  thofe  Branches  were  ^. 

a  Le  Quien  is  beforehand  with  me  in  the  obfervation,  rehofe  words  I  may  here  cue. 

Nee  cuiquam  negotium  facen-at,  quod  Hejlont  &  Euiychis  Hxrcfes  ei  (Formula)  pr!us 
pcfTjadatae  efTcnt,  quam  ipfarum  Autorcs  cmergerent :  Albi  fiquidem  ortenfum  fuit  SS. 
Patrcs,  qui  contra  AbMinArtum  calamum  ftrinxeranr,  difcrtifllmis  etiam  verbis  Amborum 
iiiipictafcs  proicripfifle      Le    -^Hien    DiHert.  Damafc.  p.  9. 

b  Eutyches..'  .per  impios  vetenim  Ilrrcticorum  volutarus  errores,  tetrium  ApoUi- 
naris  dogma  djlc^it ;  ut  nei^atae  Humanae  carnis  atque  Animae  vcriratc,  totum  nominum 
noftrum  Jcflim  Ch.iftuni  «'ii«j  a fT  rat  efle  ««r/<r<£.tanquam  verbi  i">eitas  ipfa  fe  in  Carnem 
animanujLe  converterit.  Leon    F.',A\.  97.  p.  6^}    j^ienell   ed-  confer  Ep    134.  p.  699. 

c  Sane  cum  &  multiplex,  8c  ab  Autorc  fuo  interpolata  fxpius  ApoUmnris  Haercfis  fye- 

A$ 


U^HEN  AND  WHERE  MADE,  lop 

As  to  the  other  part  of  my  Remark,  that  the  Apollinnrmm 
charg'd  the  CathoHcks  with  the  oppofite  Extreme,  afterward 
called  Nejiormn,  That  has  not  been  fo  much  obfcrved,  but  is 
no  lefs  true  than  the  other  j  as  may  abundantly  appear  from 
the  Teftimonies  in  the  margin '  j  befides  others  that  will  occur 
as  we  pafs  along.  This  alio  is  obferved  by  Le  ^ien  in  his 
Notes  to  Dum^fcen  ^  whereupon  He  rightly  infers,  that  it  will 
be  a  falfe  Conclufion  to  argue  that  fuch  or  fuch  Writings  muft 
belong  to  the  Nefiorian  Times,  only  becaufe  of  their  treating  of 
an  Unity  of  Verjon  in  Chrift. 

Thefe  things  premiled,  I  now  proceed  to  lay  down  the  Do- 
drine  of  the  Incarnation,  as  exprels'd  in  Catholick  Writers  from 
the  year  373  down  to  the  year  431,  inclufive. 

I  begin  with  the  larger  Creed  of  EpiphaniuSj  which  fets  forth 
the  Incarnation  in  the  following  Terms. 

*'  The  word  was  made  Flefh,  not  by  undergoing  any  Change,      17% 
''  nor  by  converting  his  Godhead  into  Manhood,  but  by  co- 
'•  uniting  it  into  his  one  holy  Perfection  and  Godhead.     For 
"  there  is  one  Lord  Jefus  chrijl,  and   not  Two  5  the  fame  He  is 
*'  God,  the  fame  He  Lord,  the  fame   He  King'-'. 

Here  we  may  obferv'e  that  the  Creed  guards,  juft  as  the  Atha^ 
nafian  does,  againft  the  Two  Extremes  j  againft  the  Apollinariar^ 

fit,  ut  capire  fexto  Jocuimus ;  ea  parte  cum  Ifto  confenfit  Ewyches,  qua  Carncm  Chrifti 
non  ex  utero  fumptam  B.  Virginis  fed  e  cselo  delapfam  Apollinarii  credidit;  turn  quate- 
nus  literque  unicam  naturam  aireveravit,  &  utriufque  permiftam  ac  contufam  Subftantiam, 
?etnv.  Dogmat.  Theo!.  Tom.  V.I.  i.  c.  id.  p.  37. 

a  Neque  vero  Alium  Jefum  Chriflum,  Aliatn  Verbum  dicimus,  ut  Nova  Hsre/is  ex- 
Jumniatur,  fed  eundem,  &  ante  faecula  &  poft  Cxcuh,  &  ante  rrundum  &  port  Mariami 
im^ex  Maria,  magnum  Deum  appeliamus.  Htennym    in  Tit.  c  3.  p   431. 

Qui  Apollinarii  Dogmat-a  defendant,  per  querimoniam  quam  advcrfus  nos  faciunt  fua 
confirmare  conantur,  carnale  Verbum  &  Dominum  faeculorum,  Homin'S  Filium  immoria- 
lem  Filii  Deitatera  Conftruentes.  Profenrnt  enim  quod  Aliqui  quafi  Ecclefisp  Carholicse 
exiftentcs,  Dua  coI^n^  Tilios'm  Dogmate;  unum  quidem  fecundum  nanram,  a''erum  au- 

tem  fecundum  Adoptionem  poflea  acqu.fitam  j  nefcio  a  quo  tal-a  aiidientes. nondum 

enim  novi  eum  qui  Hsec  fubloqui'ur  Gregor.  Nyjfen.  at.  Concil.  V.  Coliat  6.  p.  106. 
Hardutn.  Vid.etiam.  ^mbrtf.  de  Ir.cam.  c.7.p.  721.  Athanaf.  epift.  ad  Epi&et.  p.  907. 

b   Le  ^ien  Not.  in  Damafcm    Vol.  1.  p.  9-. 


notioa 


xjiMvu   Epiph.   Ancor.  p»    124> 


no  the  ATBANASIAK  CREED. 

notion  of  the  Godhead  being  converted  into  Fiefh,  and  againft 
the  Apollin^iri^ri'  Calumny  that  the  CathoUcks  made  Two  Chrifis 
inftcad  of  One. 

^80  Gregory  N,'iz,i^nz,en,  not  long  after,  exprefles  Him felf  in  Terms 

to  the  like  cifed.     ''  We  divide  not  the  Man  from  the  God- 

*'  head,  but  we  make  them  one  and  the  fame  {Ferfon^ If 

"  any  one  imagines  Aidry  not  to  be  the  Mother  of  God,  He  has 

''  no  part  with  God. If  any  Man  introduces  Two  Sons,  One 

"  of  God  and  the  Father,  and  a  Second  of  the  Virgin-Mother, 
"  and  not  one  and  the  fame  Him,  let  him  forfeit  the  Adoption 
^  of  Sons  promis'd  to  true  Believers.  For,  God  and  Man  are 
"  indeed  Two  Natures,  like  as  Sod  and  Body :  But  They  are  not 
"  Two  Sons,  nor  ftwoj  Gods*. 

Here,  again,  we  find  the  Neflorim  Tenets  very  fully  obviated, 
while  Nazmnz.en  is  anfwering  the  Apollinarian  Calumny  againft 
the  Cathohcks :  And  at  the  fame  Time,  the  Eutychmn  Herefy 
(afterwards  fo  called)  is  as  plainly  precluded,  while  Nuz^idnz^en  is 
laying  down  the  Church's  Faith  in  Two  Natures  agauift  the  Apol- 
linnri^'ms  who  made  but  one. 

382  Amhrofe,  in  like  manner,  confutes  the  Apolli?im'mns,  without 

naming  them.  "  We  ought  alfo  to  condemn  Thofe  who, 
"  in  another  Extreme,  teach  not  one  and  the  fame  Son  of 
"  God,  but  that  He  who  is  begotten  of  God  the  Father  is  One^ 
*'  and  He  that  is  generated  of  the  Virgin  Another :  when  the 
"  Evam^elift  faith,  that  the  word  was  m^ide  Flefh,  to  inftrud  us 

''  that  there  is  but  one  Lord  J  ejus,  not  Two. There  are 

"  Others  rifen  up  who  pretend  that  our  Lord's  Flefh  and  God- 

"  head   are  Both   of   one  NMure. And  when   They   fay 

*'  that  The  Word  was  converted  into  Flefh,  Hairs,  Blood,  and 
''  Bones,  and  changed  from  it's  own  Nature  j  after  fuch  a  pre- 
"  tended  change  of  the  divine  Nature,  They  may  take  the  Handle 

f    Ou'A   yx^   -Tin   uoi^oiTnv  ^^.^ou.ii  "rvf,  ^iijvr(^,    iAA'   ivec,    k)     lif    xuTVt    ^eyyjx-n^ef/jit. 


-«■  P-  738,. 739* 

to 


ffHEN  AND  TVHERE  MADE,  m 

"  to  wreft  any  thing  to  the  wcaknefs  of  the  Godhead,  which 
"  belongs  to  the  Infirmity  of  the  FleOi  \ 

Ambrofe  fcems  here  to  intimate  as  if  there  were  really  Some 
at  That  Time,  who  had  run  into  That  very  Error  which  the 
Apollmarians  charged  upon  the  Catholicks,  and  which  was  after- 
wards called  NeftoYMn.  However  That  be.  He  condemns  it  in 
the  name  of  the  Catholicks  j  as  He  condemns  alio  the  Apolli- 
nMmn  Extreme,  which  afterwards  became  Eutychian.  There 
is  another  Paflage  of  Amhroje  cited  by  Theodoret,  feemingly  fo 
full  and  exprels  againft  the  Nefiorian  and  Eutychian  Herefies, 
that  one  can  hardly  be  perfwadcd  to  think  it  really  Ambrofe  s. 
But,  on  the  other  hand,  it  appears  to  be  fo  well  attefled,  that 
the  late  learned  Editor  of  Ambrofe  could  not  but  yield  to 
place  it  among  his  genuine  Works.  Tom.  2.  p.  729. 

There  is  a  Creed  of  Pel^ms  (as  learned  Men  now  agree)  ^^'^ 
inferred  among  the  Works  both  of  Jerom  ^  and  Aufi'm  '^.  It. 
was  made  feveral  years  before  the  Nefior'mn  Controverfy.  Our 
learned  Y)Y.Wall  has  tranflated  it  into  Engli{h\  fubjoining  fome 
excellent  Notes  of  his  own  to  it :  I  Ihall  tranfcribe  as  much  as 
is  to  our  purpofe.  "  We  do  in  fuch  manner  hold  that  there 
*'  is  in  Chrift  one  Perfon  of  the  Son,  as  that  we  fay  there  are 
"  in  Him  two  perfed  and  intire  Subftances  {or,  NMures)  viz,. 
"  of  the  Godhead,  and  of  the  Manhood  which  confifts  of  Body 

"  and  Soul. We  do  abhor the  Blafphemy  of  Thofe. 

"  who  go  about  by  a  new  Interpretation  to  maintain  that 
"  fmce  the  Time  of  his  taking  Flelh,  all  Things  pertaining  ta 
"  the  divine  Nature  did  pafs  into  the  Man  lor.  Manhood^  and 
♦'  fo  alfo  that  all  Things  belongmg  to  the  human  Nature  were 


V 

a  Et  illos  condemnare  debemus  qui  adverfa  erroris  linei,  non  unu.ii  eunderaque  Filium 
Dei  dicunt,  fed  Alium  elTe  qui  ex  Deo  Patre  natus  fir,^//«OTqui  fir  gencratus  ex  virginei 
cum  Evangelifta  dicat  quia  verbum  euro  facinm  ejl,  ut  Unum  Doniinum   Jefum    non  duoi 

cicderes — emergunt  alii  qui  Caniem  Domini  dicant  &    Divinitatem  unius  efle  nature 

■■Deinde,  cum  ifti  dicant  quia  Verbum  in  Carmm,  Capillos,  Singuinem,  &  Ofla 
converfum  eft,  &  a  natura  propria  mutatum  eft,  datur  illis  locus  ut  infirmiutem  Carnis  ad- 
inhrmuatem  Divinitatis,  quadaiii.fa<aa  divinse  naturae  mutatione,  detorqucant.  Ambrof.  de 
Incarn.  Lacram.  c.  6. 

b  Hieronym.  Oper.  Tom.  V.  p.   125.  Bened.  edit. 

c  Augufttn.  Open.  Tom.  V.  Append,  p.  588. 

d  fr^/i\Hift.  <j/ Inf.  Bapt.  p.  200. 

f^g^jj^  ^^  trans- 


lit      ,  the    ATHANASIAK    CREED 

"  transferred  into  God  [or  the  Svme  NMure,']  From  whence 
"  would  follow  (a  Thing  no  Hcrefy  ever  offer'd  to  affirm) 
"  that  Both  Subftances  [or  Natures']  'viz.  of  the  Divinity  and 
''  Humanity,  would  by  This  Confufion  feem  to  be  extinguifh'd, 
"  and  to  lofe  their  proper  State,  and  be  changed  into  another 
*'  Thing  :  fo  that  They  who  own  in  the  Son  an  imperfed  God 
"  and  an  imperfect  Man,  are  to  be  accounted  not  to  hold 
"  truly  either  God  or  Man. 

Dr.  Wa^U  hereupon  judicioully  remarks,  that  there  wmted  only 
the  Accuracy  of  fpeakmg,  which  Pelagius  had  here  ufed^  to  clear 
and  fettle  the  difpute  between  the  Neftorians,  and  Eutychians. 
I  would  remark  farther,  that  if  Pelagius  s  Creed,  in  the  year 
417,  had  fo  plainly  obviated  both  the  Neflorian,  znd  Eutychian 
Herefy,  before  Neforius,  or  Eutyches  was  known  5  it  may  eafily 
be  conceived  that  the  Athanafian  Creed  might  do  the  fame 
Thing,  at  or  about  the  fame  Time. 

^22  ^  might  next  ihow,  how  St.  Auftin  likewife  has  exprefs'd  Him- 

felf  in  as  ftrong  Terms  againft  Both  thofe  Herefies,  as  the 
Athafiafian  Creed  has  done :  But,  becaufe  I  Ihall  have  another 
Occafion  to  cite  the  PalTages,  where  I  draw  out  a  feled  Num- 
ber of  Exprcflions  parallel  to  Thofe  of  the  Creed  5  I  may 
fpare  my  Self  the  Trouble  of  doing  it  here. 
^  ^  I  might  go  on  to  obferve  what  palled   in   the    Cafe  of  Le- 

porluSj  a  Man  of  the  fame  Principles,  in  the  main,  with 
NefloriuSj  but  fome  years  before  Him.  His  Recantation-Trea- 
tife  {Lihellus  Satisfaciionis)  fuppofed  to  be  drawn  up  by  Sr.  Au- 
ftin  in  the  year  426,  would  furnKh  me  with  many  full  and 
ftrong  Expreflions  againft  the  Neftorian  Principles,  beyond  any 
to  be  met  with  in  the  Athanafian  Creed  5  fo  that  there  is  no 
juft  Argument  to  be  drawn  from  any  Expreftlons  in  That 
Creed,  for  fctti ng  it  fo  low  as  the  Neftorian  Times. 

43  X  I  ihall   conclude  this  Account  with   the  recital  of  a  Creed 

made  about  the  fame  Time,  or  in  the  fame  Year  that  the 
Council  of  Ephefus  was  held  againft  Nejlorius.  It  is  the  Creed 
of  John^  Patriarch  of  Antiochy  appro\'ed  by  Cyril  of  Alexandria^ 
and  thought  fufficicnt  to  wipe  off  all  Sufpicion  of  Neforianifm 
frona.  the  Author  of  it.     It  runs  thus :  "  We  confcfs  then  that 

Jefus 


<l 


WHEN  AND  WHERE  MADE.  nj 

Jefus  Chrift  our  Lord,  the  only  begotten  Son  of  God,  is 
perfe^i  God,  and  ferfeci  Man^  of  a  refi^fonMe  Soul,  and  Body  j 
'■*  born  of  the  lather  before  the  V/orlds,  as  touching  his  Godhead^ 
'*  The  Jame  alfo  in  the  end  of  days,  for  us  and  for  our  Sal- 
"  vation,  (born)  of  the  Virgin  Mary,  as  touching  his  Manhood. 
*'  confubftantial  with  us  according  to  his  Manliood.  But  there 
'*  was  an  Union  made  of  Two  Natures^  on  which  account  we 
'*  profefs  one  Chrift,  one  Lord,  one  Son.  Conformable  to  this 
'■^  Senfe  of  an  Union  without  Confufion,  we  acknowledge  the 
"  holy  Virgin  as  Mother  of  Godj  becaule  that  God  the  J^'^ord 
**  was  incarnate  and  made  Man,  and  from  the  very  Con- 
*^  ception  united  to  Himfelf  a  Temple  which  He  had  taken 
"  of  Her^ 

Here  we  may  obfcrvc  feveral  Exprellions  nearly  refembling 
thofe  of  the  Athanafian  Creed ,  but  withal  feveral  others  more 
particuIarjZV\d  explicite  againft  the  Neftorian  Principles  than  That 
Creed  is :  One  Son,  and  Him  Confubftantial  with  us,  in  reipecl  of 
his  Manhood  5  The  N'vi^\x\,  Mother  of  God,  and  the  like.     Such 
is  the  conftant  Strain  and  Tenor   of  the  Creeds,  and  Co-nfefjions^ 
and  Catholick  Vv^ritings,  treating  of  the  Jncarnationj  at  This  Time, 
and  after:    As  might  be  ihewn  at  large  from  G*^/^?;^  about  43 1, 
and  Vince7ttius  in  the  year  434,  and  from  Flavian,  and  Pope  Leo  I, 
and  Others  before  the  Council  of  Chalcedon.     We  have  there- 
fore very   great  Reafon  to  believe,  that  the  Athanafan  Creed 
was  drawn  up  cither  before  the  Neftorian  Controverfy  had  made 
much  noife  in  the  World,  or  at  leaft  before  the  Compiler  had 
notice  of  it.     The  Sum  then  of  my  Argument  is  This  5  there 
isviothing  in  the  Ath^nnaf^n  Creed  but  what  might  have  been 
faid,  and  had  been  faid  by  Catholick  Writers  before  the  Time 
Q^Neftorius :  But  the  Creed  wants  many  of  thofe  particular  and 

a  Confitemur  igiturDominum  noftrum  JefumChriftum,  Filium  Dei  unigenirum,  Demti 
peyfe£lum  ^  Hominem  perfeciuw,  ex  anima  rational!  8c  Corporcj  anre  fjecula  quiciem  ex 
patre  natum  fecundum  Deitatem :  in  fine  vero  dierum  eamlem  propter  nos  &  propter 
noilram  falutem  de  Maria  Vir*ine  fecundum  Humanitatcm,  Confiibtlanti-'ikm  nobis  iecun* 
dum  Humanitatcm.  D:i.jrnm  vero  Nutwaram  unirio  taifla  efl:;  propter  quarri  unum 
Chrifium,  unum  Dominum,  unum  Fil'mm  confitemur.  Secundum  hunc  inconfufae  i:n:onis 
intelleflum,  confitemur  SancTtim  Virginem  Dei  Genitricem,  propter  quod  Deus  Vsrbitm  in- 
carnatus  ell:  8c  inhumanatus,  &  ex  ipfa  conceptione  fibimet  univit  Templuraquod  ex  ipfa 
fiiTcepit.    Johan,  Untioch,  Harduin.  Tom.  I.  p.  ifjS. 

P  critical 


114  ^he    ATHANASIAK    CREED 

cyitical  Expreillons,  which  came  into  ufe  after  That  Time: 
Theretbic,  iince  ilie  intenid  Characters  of  the  Creed  fuit  ex- 
aclly  with  the  A^oH'marian  Times,  and  not  with  the  Nejloriany 
it  ought  to  be  placed  fomewhere  between  Apollmarius,  and 
Nei'lo.'/'iSj  not  lower  than  430,  or  431  at  the  utmoft.  And  it 
is  fomc  Confirmation  of  what  hath  been  faid,  that  Venantim 
Fortunaim-,  who  li\'ed  in  the  Eutychmn  Times,  and  commented 
upon  This  Creed  about  the  year  570,  as  before  obferved,  yet 
in  his  Comment  takes  not  the  lead  notice  of  any  part  of  This 
Creed  being  oppoied  to  the  Errors  of  Nejiorius,  or  Eutyches,  but 
only  to  thofe  elder  Herefves  of  Sahellms,  Arm,  and  ApoUinarms ; 
whom  He  fpecially  makes  mention  of  I  perfwade  my  felf 
therefore,  that  This  Creed  ought  not  to  be  placed  lower  than 
430  or  thereabout;  And  I  have  before  Ihown  why  it  fhould 
not  be  fet  higher  than  420  ;  fo  that  now  we  have  brought  it 
within  the  Compafs  of  Ten  years  5  where  we  may  let  it  reft  a 
while  till  we  confider  farther  what  Place,  or  Country,  the  Creed 
was  moft  probably  compofed  in  ;  which  may  help  us  to  fettle 
the  Time  of  it's  date  within  fomewhat  ftricl:er  and  narrower 
limits  than  before. 

There  is  great  reafon  to  believe  that  This  Creed  was  made 
in  Gatil.  The  Confiderations  which  perfwade  us  thereto  are 
thefe  following,  i.  It's  early  Reception  in  the  G^/Z/V/^^^  Church, 
ih  far  as  appears,  before  all  other  Churches.  2.  The  great 
Efteem  and  Regard  untiently  paid  to  it  by  the  Ga>Uica}z  Coun- 
cils, and  Biihops  *.  3.  The  Creed's  being  firft  admitted  in- 
to the  Galliciin  Pfalter,  and  firft  received  in  thofe  Countries 
where  That  Pfalter  was  received,  as  in  Spain,  Germany^  and 
England.  As  the  Gallican  Churches  delivered  their  Plaltcr 
to  other  Churches,  fo  is  it  reafonable  to  believe  that  the  Creed 
was  received  from  Them  hkewife.  4.  Theoldeft  Verfiori  we  hear 
of  is  Gallican,  in  the  Time  of  Hincmar.  5.  The  oldeft  Au- 
thors that  make  mention  of  it,  are  like  wife  Gdlican:  For 
l^roof  of  which  I  refer  to  the  antient  Tefiimonies  above.   6.  The 

a  Taiiti  namque  apud  Gallos  Symbolum  Hoc  fuit  ut  una  cum  Symbolo  Apofto'orum 
mcniorix  commendaii  Preibyteris  pra:cipiat  Hmci/iarus  ideal  in  Capitulis,  Clencis  omnibus 
Svfiodus  ^tigujlodnncnjis.  Sirmond.  Oper.  Vol:  2.  p.  j>7&. 

firft 


WHEN   AND  WHERE    MADE.  ny 

firft  that  cite  the  Words  of  it  (as  it  fccms)  arc  Ukcwife  Gdlkm, 
I  will  here  mention  Two 5  Avitus  oi  Vlemie  in  Gmi'',  and  Gc- 
farms  of  Aries -^  I  have  fet  their  words  in  the  Margin, 
7.  The  oldeft  Commentator  upon  it,  tho'  an  ItdUn  by  Birth 
and  Education,  had  yet  travelled  into  France,  and  was  at  length 
Bilhop  of  Poiciiers.  8.  The  Number  and  Amiq^uity  of  the  Ma- 
nufcripts  of  this  Creed  found  in  France  confirm  the  fame  Thing: 
which  has  made  feveral  very  learned  Men  fubfcribe  to  This 
Opinions  that  the  Athanafim  Creed  came  firft  from  Gml 
And  it  is  certain,  that  no  other  Country,  or  Church  in  the 
World  has  fo  fair,  I  may  now  fay,  fo  clear  a  pretence  to  it: 
Many  Circumftances  concur  to  make  good  their  Title ,  as 
we  have  already  feen ;  and  more  will  appear  in  my  next  Chap- 
ter, when  I  come  to  inquire  who  was  the  Anther. 

Let  it  be  allowed  then,  for  the  prefent,  that  our  Creed  was 

a  7he  Wards  of  Avitus  Viennenfis,  -who  tests  BifJjop  in  490.  died  m  fr-^. 

De  DivinitateSpiritus  Sandli,  quern  nee  fctclum  legimus,  »?c  aeattnn,  mc gon'sttan ■— 

Nos  vero  Spintum  difcimus  ex  Vatre  ^  Tdw  procedere Sicut  eil  proprium  Spiritui 

Sanfto  a  Patre  Filioqtte  procedere,  iflud  Fides  Catholica  etiamfi  renuentibus  iion  perfuaferir, 
in  fuse  tamen  Difciplinx  Reguk  non  excedit.  Sinmnd,  Op.  Vid.  Le  ^tien  Panopl.  cbntr. 
Schifm.  Grxc.  p.  241. 

Non  nifi  ex  eodem  Symbolo,  quod  jam  ante  receptum  cHet,  Avitus  Viennenfis  alicubi 
Icribebat  De  Divinit.ne  Sp.  S.  &:c,  Le  ^tden.  Didert.  Damafcen.  p.  98. 

b  The  Words  ^/Caefarius,  whs  xpas  Bifljop  in  j-oj,  died  in  54^, 

Rogo  &  admoneo  vos,  Fratres  cariflimi,  ut  ^^icun^ue  vult  Salvus  effe,  fidem  re£lam 

■&  Catholicam  difcat,  firmiter  teneat ,  invioUtantque  confervet.. —Deus  Pater,  Deus  Fi- 

lius,  Deus  e^  Spiritus  SunSiHs:  fed  tamen  non  tres  Dii,  fed  unus  Deus.  '3)udis  Pater,  talis 
Filius,  talis  0>  Spiritus  Sanffus.  Attamen  credat  unufquifque  Fidelis  quod  Filius  aquaiis 
eft  Fatri  fectmdum  Divinitatem,  1^  minor  eft  Fatre  [ecundum  Hummitatem  carnis,  quara  de 
noftro  aflumpfit.  C*far.  Arelat.  apud  Auguft.  Op.  Tom.  V.  App.  p.  jjpp. 

N.  B  The  Editors  of  St.  Aud'm  adjudge  This  to  Cjefarius;  us  does  alfo  Oudinus  :  Cor»- 
mentt  de  Icript.  Eccl.  Vol.    i.  p.  1348. 

_  c  Caetcrum  cum  ex  allatis  fupra  Teftimoniis  vidtatur  in  Gailiis  primnm-  cel-bmrt  cc&- 
pifTe  Hoc  Symbolum,  haud  abs  re  conjedant  eruditi  viri,  in  Galiiis  illud  fuiile  ehicubratutn. 
Quod  idem  forte  fuadeat  antiquinimus  ille  in  Gsiliiis  &  in  ^ytgliz  Mos  Symbolt  alrernatim 
concineudii  iteraque  \s\%'i.  GalUcanerum  Copia  Sc  Antiquiias-  MonifMc  Diatnb.  p. 
116. 

E  GalUs  primum  prodiilTc  Symbolum  Athannfianum  animad'/ertimus,  turn  quod  a  Gallis 
fcnptoribus  ante  omnes  cclebratum,  a  Synodis  Epifcopifque  Gdlsarum  receprum.Sc  com- 
mendatum  antiquitus  fuerir,  "turn  etiam  quod  Tre^^iris  in  Galliarum  Metropoli  illud  lucu- 
oratum  fuiire  opinio  increbuerir.  Quapiropter  P/.v^^ijewj,  ac  Vojftus,  alsique  eruditiffin-i  viri 
Galium  Hominem  Symboli  Parentem  opinati  funt;  Antelmius  vero,  hac  potilVimum  ratione 
dudlus,  non  Vigdium  in  Africa,  epifcopum,  fed  Vmcentinm  Lirinenfem  Opulculi  hujus  Aa- 
'<ftorem  affirmavit.  Lud.  Mnrator.  Tom.  2.  p.  229. 

P  2  oridnailv 


11^  Tlje   A7HAHAS1AK   CREED  dec, 

originally  Gallictin,2ii\d  made  between  420,  and  430:  We  may 
next  confidcr,  whether  we  cannot  come  a  little  nearer  towaius 
fixing  the  Time  of  it's  Compoiition.  We  muft  point  out  lome 
Seafon  when  St.  Atijihis  Works  were  known,  and  Ihidied,  and 
well  efteem'd  of  in  C.taI\  and  when  the  Circumflanccs  of  tue 
Place  might  the  moil:  probably  give  occafton  for  the  compihng 
fuch  a  Creed.  Now,  it  is  oblbrvable  that  about  the  year  426, 
Sx..Atiflm  held  a  very  clofc  and  intimate  Correfpondence  with 
the  Gdlican  Churches.  Lcporms  had  for  fome  Time  Ipread  falle 
Doi!.lrine  in  Gaulj  chiefly  relating  to  the  IncdrnMioa.  His  Herefy 
was  much  the  lame  with  what  Nefloriusi,  was  afterwards.  The 
Cdlicfin  Lilhops  ccnfured  Him  5  and  He  was  forced  to  quit  his 
Country,  having  given  general  Offence  to  all  there.  He  took 
his  leave  of  Caul,  and  pallid  over  into  Africa^,  with  fcveral 
Others  of  the  fame  Party,  and  Principles:  where  lighting  up- 
on Aiirel'ms  Bifhop  of  CarthagCj  and  St.  Aufi'm,  He  was  by  Them 
brought  to  a  Senle  of  his  Error,  and  induced  to  fign  a  full  Re- 
cantation, called  L'tbellus  S.itisfa,cHoms ;  whereupon  St.  Atifliny 
and  Aurelim,  and  other  Africa72  Bilhops  became  IntcrcelTors  with 
the  Bilhops  of  Gaul,  in  favour  of  Leporms ,  that  He  might  be 
again  received  and  reflorcd  by  them.  One  can  fcarce  imagine 
any  more  likely  Time,  or  more  proper  Occafion  for  the  com- 
piling Inch  a  Creed  as  the  Athanafmn  is.  All  the  Lines  and 
Charaders  of  it  fuit  extremely  well  with  the  Place,  the  Time, 
the  Occafion,  and  other  Circumflanccs  5  which  conau'  to  per- 
Iwade  us  that  the  Creed  was,  in  all  Probability,  compofed  in 
Gaid,  fometimc  between  the  year  426,  and  the  year  430:  So 
that  now  we  are  confined  to  the  narrow  Compafs  of  four  or 
five  years,  upon  the  moft  probable  Conjedfure,  and  upon  fuch 
Evidences  as  a  Cafe  of  this  Nature  can  admit  of,  where  more 
cannot  be  cxpeded. 


CHAR 


117 

CHAP.     VIIL 

Of  the  Author  of  the  Creed, 

IF  wc  have  hitherto  gone  upon  fure  Grounds,  about  the  Time,. 
and  Vldce,  we  cannot  long  be  at   a  lofs  for  the  Author  of 
This  Creed.     Who  were  the  mod  confiderable  Men,  and  beft 
quaHiied  for  fuch  a  Work,  at  That  Time  in  Gml?  Anthelmius 
will  fay,  Vmcentm  Lirinenfis.     But   I  have  feveral  Reafons  to 
perfwade  me  that  it  was  not,  or  could  not  be  Vincentms.    No 
Contemporary  of  his,  nor   any  antient  Writer  ever  gives  the 
Icaft  Hint  of  his  compofing  fuch  a  Work.     Anthelmius  fuppofes 
it  to  be  after  his   Commonitory  ^    that  is,    after    434  5  which  if 
it   had   been,   we  fhould  undoubtedly   have  found  the   Creed 
more  particular,  and  explicite  againft  the  Neftori^m  Herefy  :  We. 
fhould  have  read  in  it  Mother  of  God,  One  Son  only,  and  fome- 
thing  of  God's  being  born,  fuffering,  dying,  or  the  like  ;  It  can- 
not therefore  be  juftly  afcribcd  to  Vincentius.    Not  to  mention, 
that  fuch  a  Work  appears  to  have  been  much  fitter  for  a  Bi^op 
of  a  Church,  than  for  a  private  Presbyter  j  in  as  much  as  Bipoops 
generally  were  obliged  to  give  an  Account  of  their  Faith,  up- 
on their   firft  Entrance   upon    the  Epifcopate  :  And  They  had 
the  Privilege  likewife  of  making  Creeds^  and  Forms  of  Prayer^ 
for  their  refpedive  Diocelfes  :    For   which  Reafons,  cdteris  pari-* 
bus,  this   Creed   ought  rather   to  be  afcribed  to  fome  Bijljop  of 
that   Time   than    to   an  inferior  Presbyter.     And  who  more, 
likely  to  compofe  fuch  a  Creed  xh:i.i\HiUry  Bilhop  of  Aries,  a 
cehbrated   Man   of  That  ^ Time,    and   of  chief  Repute  in  the 
Gdlicm  Church  ?   His  Title  to  it  will  ftand  upon  the  follow- 
ing Circumftances. 

i«  He  was  madeBiihop  in  G^iul  within  the  Time  mention'd, 
about  the  year  429.  2.  He  is  allowed  to  have  been  a  iVlan  of 
great  Parts  and  Capacity,  of  a  neat  Wit,  and  elegant  Style, 
for  the  Age  He  lived  in  5  infomuch  that  Livius,  a  Poet,  and  a^ 
celebrated  Writer  of  that  Time,  did  not  fcruple  to  fay,  that 
if  Aujiin  had  come  after  HiUry,    He  would   have  been  judged 

his 


11  8  Of  the    AUTHOR    of 

his  Inferior  *,  3 .  Genn/^dius*s  Charadcr  of  HiUry's  Writings,  that 
They  were  frriall  7rMh^y  but  extremely  fnc,  liiits  well  with 
our  piefjQt  Suppofition  :  But  what  moft  of  all  confirms  and 
ftrengthcns  it,  is  what  Honoratus  of  M^rfetlles,  the  writer  of 
his  Life,  tells  us  5  that  Hilary  compofcd  an  Expofitiotty  a  very 
ftdmirahlc  Expofition  [  Symboli  Expojit/o  ambienda']  of  the  Creed  ^, 
He  calls  it  an  Expofition  of  the  Creeds  (not  a  Creed)  which  is  the 
proper  Title  for  it,  and  more  proper  than  that  of  Symbolum,  or 
Creedj  which  it  now  bears.  And  fo  we  find  that  ir  was  but 
very  rarely  called  Symbolum  by  the  Antients  j  once,  I  think,  by 
Hincma^r,  and  never  after  for  feveral  Centuries :  And  when  it 
was,  yet  it  was  obferved,  by  Thomas  Aqmnas,  that  That  was  not 
lb  proper  a  name  for  it,  not  being  compofed  per  mcdum 
Symbolic  in  the  way  of  a  Creed ;  as  indeed  it  is  not.  What  the 
more  anticnt,  and  ufual  Titles  were,  may  appear  in  one  View  in 
the  Tables  above.  Among  others,  we  Ibmetimes  find  the  Title 
oi  Expofitio  Catholic  A  Eidei-^QX.  yet  nearer,  Expofitio  Symboli  Apoflolo- 
ru77i,  Ari'  Expofitioiz  of  the  Apoflle's  Creed,  which  is  as  proper  a 
Title  as  any,  and  not  unlike  to  This  of  Honoratus.  4.  I  may 
farther  obfcrve,  that  This  Hilary  of  Aries  was  a  great  Admirer 
and  Follower  of  St.  Anftin  d,  and  had  ftudied  his  Writings : 
which  may   account   for  his  very   often  following  St.  Aufiin^ 

a  Quid  plura  dicam?  Nifi  dicendi  Paufa  dcfnpcr  eidem  aJveniflcr,  fermonem  finire  non 
potHcrat,  tanra  gratia  exundante,  &  miraculo  &.  ftupore  crefcente,  ut  perkiflimis  delpera- 
tionem  tunc  Autoribus  fx'culi  ejus  inf^rret  Oratio;  in  tap.tum  ut  Livius  Temporis  illius 
Pocta,  6c  Autor  iufignis,  puhlice  proclamaret;  Si  AugnftinHs  pojl  Te  fttijfet,  judicaretur 
inferior,     Honoratus,  in  Vira  StJ   Hilarii  p.  74O.  edit.  j^iefiielU 

h  liigenio  vero  immortali,  aliqua  &  parva  edidit,  quje  eruditA  Animt,  &  fidelis  LingtHi 
indicio  funtj  in  quibiis  prarcipue  &C.  Gennad-  de  Hilario  Arclat.  c.  69.  p.  32. 

c  Graria  ejus  ex  his  opcribus,  qua:  cadcm  dtccndi  impctu  concqjir,  gcnuit,  ornavir, 
protulit,  poffic  ablque  Hxfitatione  dignufci:  Vita  Icilicet  Antiftitis  Hontratii  Homilir  in 
Totius  Anni  Fcftivitatibus  expedite,  iymboU  expofitio  ambtehda,  Epiftolarum  vero  tantus 
numerus  O-c  Honorat.  Vit.  Hilar,  p.  7  4''« 

N.n.  There  is  fome  d&ubt  ivhethir  Ravcnnius  0/ Aries,  Sucajfor  to  Hilary,  or  Honoratus  of 
Marfcillcs  be  the  Author  of  This  Life:  Bm  there  is  good  re^m  to  afcribe  it  to  the  Latter.  See 
Quef.iel.  Vol.  2;  p.  7;o.  and  Anthelmiu?,  de  lerii  opcribtts  Leon.  M.  p.  567. 

d  Unum  Eorum  prsecipuar  Audloritatis,  &  fpiritualium  Ihidiorum  Virun\  hn(\.umHi- 
lariutn,  .Arelttttnfon  Epilcopum,  fciat  Beatitudo  Tua  Admiratorem,  Seflatoremque  in  aliis 
omniifus  tu3E.  eflfe  dodlrinz;  Va  de  hoc  quod  in  querelam  irahit,  jam  pridem  apud  Sanfti- 
tateni  tuam  fenfum  fuum  per  litems  vclle  conferre.  Pro/per  ad  Angujlin.  ep.  nj. p-  Si/. 
Bencd.  ed. 

Thoughts 


The  ATBAKASIAN  CREED.  tip 

Thoughts  in  the  compiling  of  the  Creed,  and  fometimes  his 
very  Exj?reffiom -,  and  indeed  forming  the  whole  Compofition, 
in  a  manner,  upon  St.  Aujiins  Plan,  both  with  refped  to  the 
Trmity,  and  Incdrndticn.  He  did  not  indeed  come  heartily  in 
to  St.  AujHn\  Dodrine  about  Gn^.ce,  Fredefimatm^y  Tree-ivill^  &zc. 
any  more  than  the  other  G^Jlica-a  Bifhops ;  But  as  to  other 
Points,  as  Profier  obferves,  Hikry  was  intirely  in  Auftins  Sen- 
timents. 5.  Hence  likewife  we  may  account  for  the  Simili- 
tude of  Thoughts  and  Exprellions  between  Vincentius  LirinenftSy 
and  the  Author  of  the  Creed  5  which  Anthelmius  infifts  much 
upon  to  juftify  his  afcribing  it  to  Vincentitss.  HiUry  and  Vm- 
centius  were  Contemporaries,  and  Country-men,  and  Both  of 
the  fame  Monaftcry  in  the  lile  of  Lerin^  much  about  the  fame 
Time :  So  that  it  is  natural  to  fuppofe  that  They  ihould  fait 
into  the  like  Exprellions,  while  treating  on  the  fame  Things  5 
or  that  Vimentms  might  affed  to  copy  from  fo  great  a  Man  as 
BiUry  (firft,  Abbot  of  Lerm,  and  then  Archbifhop  of  Aries)  when 
writing  on  the  fame  Subjed,  6.  As  to  the  Style  of  HiUry,  xX\o 
we  have  but  little  of  his  left  to  compare  the  Creed  with, 
yet  what  there  is  anfwers  very  well  to  the  Idea  one  Ihould 
have  of  a  Man  that  might  be  able  to  draw  up  fuch  a  Piece. 
His  Life  of  the  elder  Hmomtm,  who  was  his  Predeceflbr  in  the  See 
o-i  Aries y  IS  an  excellent  Performance,  and  comes  nothing  ihort 
of  the  Charader  He  had  raifed  for  Wit  and  Eloquence.  Thq 
Style  is  clear  and  frrong,  Ihort  and  fententious,  abounding  with 
Antithefes,  elegant  Turns,  and  manly  ftrokcs  of  Wit.  He  does 
but  touch  a  little,  in  That  Piece,  upon  the  Subjed  of  the  Tri~ 
nity.  So  that  one  cannot  from  thence  difcover  how  He  wou'd 
have  exprefs'd  Himfelf  upon  That  Head.  Only,  that  little  there 
is  There,  is  very  like  to  a  Paragraph  in  the  Athmafmn  Creed, 
both  for  Turn,  and  ExprelTion.  Speaking  of  HonorMus,  or  ra- 
ther to  Him,  in  the  way  of  a  Rhetorical  Apofirophe,  He  ob- 
ferves  how  clear  and  expreffive  He  had  been  in  his  Difcourfcs 

a  Quotidianus  fiqiiidem  in  finccrifTimis  Traaatibus  Confeffionis  Patris.  ac  Filii,  ac 
Spiritus  bandti  Teftts  fuiai:  Nee  facile  tarn  exerte,  tarn  lucide  Quilquam  de  DivinitatisTri- 
Bitate  diUermt,  cum  earn  Vcrfonh  diftingueres,  &  gioruE  {glorifi,,)  sternitate.  ac  Majt-aate 
lociares.  Uihr.  Vit.  Honorat.  p.  770.  ^c/ndl.  ed, 

concern.-. 


I20  Of  the  AUTHOR  of 

concerning  the  Trinity  in  the  Godhead-^  m^ing  the  Verjons  di- 
ftinct,  but  co-uniting;  them  in  Glory,  Furn^ity,  and  Majefty. 
Which  may  remind  us  of  the  Words  of  the  Athannfian  Creed, 
*' There  is  one.Perfon  of  the  Father,  <!^c  but  the  Godhead  of  the 
''Father,  and  of  the  Son,  and  of  the  Holy  Glioil  is  all  one, 
"The  Glory  equal ,  the  MajeJIy  co-eternal.  However  That  be, 
This  we  may  learn  from  it,  how  great  a  Connricndation  it 
was,  in  Hilarys  Account,  to  be  able  to  fpeak  clearly,  and  ac- 
curately upon  the  Subject  of  the  Trinity,  and  how  ambitious 
He  might  be  of  fo  doing  Himfclf :  And  we  know,  from  his 
dyifig  hiftrudions  ^  to  his  Friends  about  Him,  how  much  He  had 
the  Subjed  at  Heart.  Thefc,  I  confefs,  are  but  little  Circum- 
flances :  Yet  They  are  of  fome  weight  along  with  others  more 
confidcrable,  and  therefore  ought  not  to  be  intirely  omitted. 
What  v/cighs  mod:  with  me  is,  that  He  was,  in  his  Time,  a 
Man  of  the  greateft  Authority  in  the  GalUcan  Chw^d^,  without 
whofe  Advice,  or  Privity  at  leaft,  fuch  a  Creed  would  hardly 
have  pafs'd ;  and  that  He  actually  was  the  Author  oi  fuch  a 
Work  as  This  is,  and  which  muft  either  be  This,  or  elfe  is 
loft.  This  Creed  has  been  fomctimes  afcribed  to  the  elder  Hi- 
lary of  PoiclierSj  tho*  neither  the  Diciion,  nor  the  Aiatter,  nor 
the  Marnier  of  it  look  any  Thing  like  his :  Only,  it  feems.  This 
Creed  in  one  Manufcript  was  found  tack'd  to  fome  Pieces  of 
That  Hilary.  I  pretend' not  to  draw  any  Argument  from  hence 
in  favor  of  our  Hilary :  Tho'  had  the  Manufcript  been  a  very 
antient  one,  or  copied  from  one  that  was  (neither  of  which 
appears j  I  fhould  have  thought  it  of  fome  moment  5  fuice  the 
fmiilitude  of  Names  might  pollibly  have  occafion'd  it. 

a  Among  tphich  thii  is  one,'  and  the  fi'-Jl, 
FidcTi  Trinitatis  immobilitcr  retinctc.  Vit.  Hilar,  p.  747. 

b  Qucfnel  quotes  This  el&gium  of  Him,  from  ConQanrius  Presbyter  of  the  fame  Time. 
llluflrabatur  Hxc  Civira5  if.'/jnoSaccrdotc,  muliimodi  virtutepretiofo:  Erat  enim  Iidei 
•i^Ktus  Torrcns,  cxleftis   cloquii,  8c  prxceptionis  divinas  Opcrarius  indcfeflus.    ^utaell,  p. 

f43- 

To  which  may  be  added  one  Line  of  hit  Epitaph. 

Gemma  Sucerdotum,  Plebifquc,  Orbifque  Magifler.  Quenell,  iLid. 

Tanta  fuit  ejus  in  diccndo  vis,  ut  Silvius,  Eufc/>i;ts,  Domnultts,  Auftores  coaevi,  admira- 
tione  fucccnfi  in  hxc  verba  prorupcrint:  Non  Docirinam,  non  Eloquentiam,  fed  r.efcto  quid 
fiiper  Homines  confeaituin*  Natal.  Alexand.  Sec.  V.  c.  4.  Art.  1 9.  ex  Honorati  Vit-  Hilar, 
c.  .\  I . 

Having 


The    ATHANASIAN     CREED  m 

Having  confidcred  fucli  Reafons  as  fecm  to  favor  the  Conic- 
^ure  about  HHary  of  ^ries  5  it  will  next  be  proper  to  confider 
alfo  what  may  be  objedcd  againft  it. 

1.  It  may  be  objeded,  that  This ///Z^;'^' lived  to  the  Year  449, 
faw  the  Rife,  Progrcfs,  and  Condemnation  of  the  Nefiortdu 
Herefy,  and  the  Beginning  at  lead  ofthe  Eutychimi.  May  it  not 
therefore  be  reafonably  prefumed  that,  had  He  been  to  compile 
a  Confejjion  of  F.iithy  He  would  have  made  it  more  ftdt  and 
particular  againft  Both  thofe  Herefles  than  I  have  fuppofed  the 
Creed  to  be  ?  To  This  I  anfwer,  that  the  Objedion  would  be 
of  weight  if  I  fuppofed  this  Creed  to  have  been  made  by  Him 
in  the  laft  years  of  his  Life  :  But  as  I  take  it  to  have  been  made 
a  little  after  his  Entrance  upon  his  Epifcopate  (to  be  a  Rule  to 
his  Clergy  all  his  Time,  as  well  as  to  fatisfy  his  CoUegues  of 
his  own  Orthodoxy)  the  Objedion  afFeds  not  me.  Admit  the 
Creed  to  have  been  drawn  up  by  Him  about  the  Year  42  9,  or 
4305  and  then  it  is  juft  what  it  Ihould  be,  exadlyfuited  to  the 
Circumftances  of  Time,  and  Place  :  And  as  to  his  inlarging,  or 
altering  it  afterwards,  upon  the  Rife  of  the  Two  Herefies,  it 
might  not  be  in  his  Power  when  once  gone  out  of  his  Hands : 
Nor  would  it  be  necejjary,  fince  Both  Thefe  Herefies  are  fuffi- 
ciently  obviated  in  This  Creed,  tho'  not  fo  explicitelj  condemn  d 
as  in  many  that  came  later. 

2.  It  may  be  ask'd,  how  the  Author's  Name  came  to  be 
fo  ftudioufly  conceal'd  even  by  Thofe  that  received  and  ad- 
mired the  Creed  5  and  how  it  came  to  take  at  length  the 
Name  of  AthanafmSj  T^ixhzx:  than  of  Hilary}  I  anfwer:  This  Ob- 
jedion  will  equally  lie  againft  any  other  Author  alfignable 
w^tever,  except  Atha?mjiiis  Himfelf  whom  we  cannot,  with 
any  colour  of  reafon,  afcribe  it  to.  It  will  be  as  eafy  to  ac- 
count for  the  ftudious  Concealment  of  the  Author's  Name,  fup- 
pofmg  it  HiUry^  as  for  any  Other,  or  perhaps  eafier.  This 
Hilary  had  ftoutly  defended  the  Rights  of  his  See  againft 
Pope  Leo's  Encroachments,  in  the  matter  of  Appeals^  and  o- 
ther  Branches  of  Jurifdidion.  This  brought  the  good  Man 
under  disfavor,  and  difrepute  j  as  muft  happen  to  die  beft  of 
Men  when  They  have  Perfons  of  greater  Figure  and   Authori- 

Q.  ty 


Ill  of  the    AUTHOR    of 

ty  than  thcmfclvcs  to  contend  with,  however  righteous  and 
clear  their  Caufe  may  be.  Befidcs  This,  Hilary  had  cntertain'd 
a  didike  to  Ibmc  of  St.  Atifl'nt's  prevailing  Doftrines,  about 
Grace,  growing  much  in  Vogue ;  fo  tliat  St.  Aujli?is  more  zea- 
lous Diiciplcs  had  a  Pique  againft  him  on  That  account,  and 
had  the  lefs  vakic  tor  his  Name.  The  way  then  to  have  This 
Creed  pafs  current,  and  make  it  generally  received  was  to  ftifle 
as  much  as  poilible  the  Name  of  the  Author,  and  to  leave  it 
to  ftand  by  its  own  intrinfick  worth  and  v/cight.  As  to  the 
Name  of  Athanafius,  I  take  it  to  have  come  Thus.  Upon 
the  revival  of  the  Arian  Controverfy  in  Gaul,  under  the  influ- 
ence of  the  Burgundian  Kings,  it  was  obvious  to  call  one  fide 
Atha-fiafians,  and  the  other  fide  Arians-,  and  lb  alfo  to  name 
tlic  Orthodox  Faith  the  Athanafian  Faith,  as  the  other  Arian. 
This  Creed  therefore,  being  a  Summary  of  the  Orthodox  and 
Catholick  Faith,  might  in  procefsof  Time  acquire  the  Name  of  the 
Athanafian  Faith,  or  Fides  Athanafii,  in  oppofition  to  the  contrary 
Scheme  which  might  as  juflly  be  called  Fides  Arii,  or  the  Arian 
Faith.  The  equivocal nefs  of  the  Title  gave  a  handle  to  thofc 
that  came  after  to  underftand  it  of  a  Form  of  Faith  compofed 
by  Athan-afius;  juft  as  the  equivocal  Title  of  Apoftolical  given  to 
the  Roman  Creed  occafion'd  the  miftake  about  its  being  made 
by  the  Apofiles.  This  appears  to  me  the  mofl:  probable  Account 
of  the  whole  matter :  And  it  is  very  much  confirm'd  by  what 
we  fee  of  f:vcral  Trads,  wrote  in  the  fifth  and  ilxth  Centu- 
ries T>ialogue-ivije,  where  Athanafius  is  made  the  Mouth  of  the 
Catholick  Side,  and  Arius  of  his  Party,  and  Photinus  of  his : 
Not  meaning  that  Athanafius,  Arius,  and  Photinus  were  really 
the  Speakers  in  Thofc  Conferences,  but  the  Readers  were  to 
underftand  the  Athanafian,  Arian,  and  Photinian  Principles  as 
being  there  fairly  reprcfented  under  Thofe  leading  Names. 

3  \i  it  be  ask'd  farther,  why  This  Creed  was  not  cited 
during  the  Neftorian  and  Eutychian  Controverfy,  when  there 
was  fo  frequent  occafion  for  it  :  I  anfwer,  partly  becaufc  the 
Creed  was  not  particular  and  explicite  enough  to  have  done 
muchfervice;  but  chiefly,  becaule  the  Author  had  been  eclips'd, 
and  his  Reputation  obfcurcd   by  greater    Names  than   his,   i'o 

that 


Ue  ATHANASIAN   CREED.  113 

that  his  Authority  had  weighed  httle;  and  to  produce  it 
witliout  a  Name  would  have  fignified  lefs.  This  Objedion 
tiierefore,  tho'  it  might  be  of  great  Force  in  the  Queftion  about 
Athmafius,  is  of  no  weight  at  all  againft  our  prefent  Suppofi- 
tion  about  Hilary  of  Aries. 

Thefe  are  all  the  Objedions  which  to  me  occur:  And 
they  Teem  to  be  fo  far  from  weakening  the  Grounds  upon 
which  I  proceed,  that  they  rather  tend  to  ftrengthen  and 
confirm  Them.  And  tho'  I  do  not  pretend  to  ftrid 
Certainty  about  the  Author  of  the  Creed  j  yet  I  periwade 
my  felf  that  none  that  have  been  hitherto  named  have  any 
fairer,  or  fo  fair  a  Claim  to  it  as  the  Man  I  have  mention'd. 
Not  Athmafmsy  not  Hilary  of  Poitiers,  not  Eufebius  of  Ferceil, 
not  Pope  Anaftafms  I,  nor  any  of  That  name  ;  not  Fincemius 
LtrinenfiSj  nor  Vigilius  Tdpfenfis,  nor  Athannfms  of  Sfire,  nor 
Fortunatusy  nor  Bonifrcius,  nor  Any  other  that  has  been  thought 
on.  From  the  many  Conjectures  heretofore  advanced  by  learn- 
ed Men,  one  may  perceive  that  it  has  been  judged  to  be  a 
Thing  worth  the  inquiring  after :  And  as  Others  have  taken 
the  liberty  of  naming  fuch  Author,  or  Authors  as  to  Them  ap- 
peared moft  likely  to  have  made  the  Creed,  fo  have  I,  in  my 
Turn,  not  fcrupling  to  add  one  more  to  the  Number. 

The  Sum  then  of  what  I  have  prefumed  to  advance  upon 
probable  Conjedure,  in  a  Cafe  which  will  not  admit  of  full 
and  perfed  Evidence,  is  This :  That  Hilar j  once  Abbot  of  Le- 
rins,  and  next  Bifhop  oi  Aries,  about  the  year  430  compofed 
The  Expofition  of  Faith  which  now  bears  the  Name  of  the  Atha- 
nO'fian  Creed.  It  was  drawn  up  for  the  ufe  of  the  Gallicm 
Clergy,  and  efpecially  for  the  Diocefs,  or  Province  of  Aries.  It 
was  ^efteemed  by  as  many  as-  were  acquainted  with  it,  as  a  valu- 
able Summary  of  the  Chriftian  Faith.  It  feems  to  have  been 
in  the  Hands  of  Vinceritius,U.Q\^k  of  Zm^/!i,  before  434,  by  what 
He  has  borrowed  from  it  5  and  to  have  been  cited  in  part  by 
Avitus  of  Vienne  about  the  year  5  00,  and  by  C^farius  of  Aries 
before  the  year  543.  About  the  year  570,  it  became  famous 
enough  to  be  commented  upon  like  the  Lord's-Prayer,  and  Apo- 
ftles  Creed,  and  together  with  Them.     All  this  wJiile,  and  per- 

Q^  2  haps 


124  of  the  /lUTHOR  of,  &c. 

haps  for  fcvei-al  years  lower,  it  had  not  yet  acquired  the  Name 
of  the  Athxnafi.^n  Fmthybwt  was  fimply  ftiled  the  Catholick  Fmh. 
But  before  670,  Athanajiuss  admired  Name  came  in  to  recomr 
mend  aiid  adorn  it ;  being  in  it  felf  alfo  an  excellent  Syftem  of 
the  Athanafmn  Principles  of  the  Trinitf'  and  Incarnation^  in  Op- 
pofition  chiefly  to  ArUns,  MMedonium,  and  ApDllinarinm.  The 
Name  of  The  Faith  of  Athanajius,  in  a  while,  occafion'd  the 
Midake  of  afcribing  it  to  Him,  as  his  Compofition.  This  gave 
it  Authority  enough  to  be  cited  and  appealed  to  as  Standard,  in 
the  Difputcs  of  the  middle  Ages,  between  Greeks  and  Latins  a- 
bout  the  Proceffion:  And  the  fame  admired  Name,  together  with 
the  intrinfick  worth  and  value  of  the  Form  it  felf,  gave  it  Credit 
enough  to  be  received  into  the  Vuhlick  Service  in  the  Wefiern 
Churches ;  tirft  in  France,  next  in  S^ain,  foon  after  in  Germany^ 
England,  Italy,  and  at  length  in  Rome  it  felf  5  while  many  other 
excellent  Creeds  drawn  up  in  Councils,  or  recommended  by 
Emperors,  yet  never  arrived  to  any  fuch  Honour  and  Efleem  as 
This  hath  done.  The  truly  good  and  great  Author  fas  I  now 
fuppofe  Him)  tho'  ill  ufed  by  the  then  Pope  of  Rome,  and  not 
kindly  treated,  with  refped  to  his  Memory,  in  after  Ages, 
has  neverthelefs  been  the  Mouth  of  all  the  Weftem  Churches, 
and  fome  Eafiern  too,  for  a  long  Trad  of  Centuries,  in  cele- 
brating the  Glories  of  the  Coeternal  Trinity.  And  fo  may 
He  ever  continue,  till  the  Chriftian  Churches  can  find  out 
(which  They  will  not  eafily  do)  a  jufter,  or  founder,  or  more 
accurate  Form  of  Faith  than  This  is. 

a  Romanc  ego  Ecclcfia:  quafi  Symbolum,  incerto  Autoie,  exiflimem,  hinc  Athanafiidl- 
clum  8c  putanim  quod  dilucide  Catholicam  ij  lamque  Athanafii  Fidem  f  de  Trinitate, 
/naxime)  complefterctur;  cujus  inter  Catholicos  fie  fpedlata  Fides,  ut  ejus  Communio 
velut  Teflera  Catholici  elFetj  cenfereturque  £//«  condemnatio  ipfa  Niciw*  &C<»/^o//V£  Fidei 
cjuratioi  uti  fe  res  hibuit  in  Liberio  Romano  Antillitc  &c.  Combefif,  not.  in  Cake.  NoVc 
Auftar.  Patr.  Ton^.  2.  p.  296. 


CHAP 


12.5 


C  H  A  P.     IX. 

The  Creed  it  felf  tn  the  Original  Language  with  Paral- 
lel Tajfages  from  the  Fathers. 

MY  Defign  in  this  Chapter,  is  5 
I .  To  exhibit  tlie  Creed  in  its  Native  Language,  that 
is,  in  Latiuy  according  to  the  moft  anticnt,  and  moft  corred 
Copies.  The  Various  Legions  will  be  placed  at  the  Bottom,  un- 
der the  Creed  :  The  Manufcripts  therein  referred  to  fhall  be  de- 
noted by  fuch  Names,  or  Marks  as  appear  above  in  the  TMe 
of  Manufcripts. 

2.  Oppofite  to  the  Creed,  in  another  Column,  I  place  p(t>- 
rdlel  Paflages,  feleded  from  Authors  that  lived  and  wrote  be- 
fore 430,  principally  from  St.Auflin:  And  this  with  defign  to 
inforce  and  illuftrate  my  main  Argument  before  infifted  on  5 
namely,  that  the  Creed  contains  nothing  but  what  had  been 
allerted,  in  as  full  and  exprefs  Words  as  any  Words  of  the  Creed 
are,  by  Church  Writers  before  the  Time  Ipecified. 

3.  I  fubjoin  under  thefe,  at  the  Bottom  of  the  Page,  fomc 
farther  feled  Paflages  from  Church  Writers  before  or  after  the 
Time  mention'd  5  partly  to  ferve  as  Comments  upon  fome  Places 
of  the  Creed,  and  partly  to  Ihow  how  fome  Writers  of  the 
Vth  Century,  Vincentim  cfpecially,  exprefs'd  themfelves  o\\  the 
fame  Heads,  that  the  Reader  may  from  thence  judge  whether 
They  appear  prior  to  the  Creed,  or  the  Creed  prior  to  Them. 

Ivought  to  ask  my  E^igUpj  Reader's  Pardon  for  This  Part  j 
which  He  may  pleafe  to  pafs  over,  and  to  go  on  to  the  next 
chapter,  intended  chiefly  for  his  Satisfadion,  and  to  make  Him 
fome  amends  for  the  prefent  Interruption  :  For,  my  Defign  in 
fubjoining  an  EngUfh  Commentary  is  to  ferve  much  the  fame 
purpofes  with  what  is  here  intended  by  the  Latin ;  tho'  not 
all  of  them,  but  as  many  as  the  Nature  of  the  Thing  will 
allow, 

Loca 


116 


The    ORIGINAL  CREED 


Loca  parallcla  cxccrpta  ex  Variis ; 
Ante  An.  430. 

1.  Cztholicx Difcij^lmji  majefiafe  in- 
fl  I  tut  urn  eft,  ut  (iccedentihus  ad  Religionem 
Fides  terjunde^itur  ante  omnia. 

Auf^ufl:.  Tom,  8.  ^.  64. 

H&c  eft  fides  noftr^y  quo?iiam  h^c  eft 
Fides  reci^y  quA  etimn  Catholica  nuncu- 
patur.  ^'""-  S-  7^9' 

2.  Hdvetici  • Simplici  Fide  Ca- 
tholica contenti  ejfe  nolunt  \  cjua  una 
parvulis   Salus  eft. 

Auguft.  Tom  4.  f.  Cq. 
G^fg.  Hazian.  Orat.  23.  p.  41*. 

4.  f^  H.et  o;^;;^M  ^/f^  confufe  unum 
funt,  nee  disj  uncle  trin  funt. 

Auguftin.  Tom.  2.  p.'Coc). 

5 .  Impietatem  Sabellii  decli?iantesy  Tres 

Txcerpla  ex  fatribus. 

1.  Credamus  ergo  Fratres ;  Hoc  eft  primum  prar- 
ceptum.  Hoc  eft  Initium  Reiigionis  8c  vitae  noftrse, 
iixum  habere  Cor  in  ¥ide.  Auguft.  Tom.  <,.  p.  195-. 

2.  Catholicoruni  Hoc  fere  proprium,  depofita  fan- 
ftonim  Patrum  &:  commifTa  lervare,  damnare  profa- 
nas  novitates:  8c  ficut  dixit,  8c  itcrum  dixit  Apofto- 
lus ;  fi  (jiiis  annunciaverit,  prtterquam  quod  acccptum 
eft,  anathemare.     Vincent,  c.  34.  p.  Hi. 

3.  Catholica  Ecclefia  unum  Dcumin  Trinitatis  ple- 
nitudinc,  8c  item  Trinitatis  aequalitarcm  in  una  Divi- 
nitate  vencratur.  Vinum.  c  21.  Sc  c.  i8. 

4  Utncque  fingularitas  fubftantiae  perfonaruni  ron- 
fundat  proprietatcm,  ncqiie  item  Trinitatis  diftindlio 
unitatem  feparet  Dcitatis.  Vincent. c.  22. 

f.  Quia  fcilicet  alia  eft  perfona  Patris,  alia  Filii.alia 
Spiritus  fandi  Vhicent,  c.  ijj. 


FIDES    CATHOLICA. 


I.  Quicumque  vult  falvus 
eflc,  ante  omnia  opus  eft  ut 
tencat  Cathoiicam  Fidcm. 


2.  Quam  niii  Quifquc  intc- 
gram  inviolatamque  fervaverit, 
ablque  dubio  in  sternum  per- 
ibit. 

3.  Fides  autem  Catholica 
Hxc  eft,  ut  unum  Dcum  in 
Trinitate ,  &  Trinitatem  in 
unitate  veneremur  : 

4.  Neque  confundentes  pcr- 
Ibnas,  neque  Subftantiam  fe- 
parantes. 

5.  Alia    eft   cnim    perfona 

Varianfes  LeEfiones. 
1   (  falvus  effe. )  efte  falvus.    Cod,   .Amm 
brof,  &  Fortunat*  in  MS.  Ambrof. 

J.  {®u\(aiHt)  Quis.  Cod.  Ambrof.  (in  vio- 
latamcjue)  inviolabilemque.  Cod.  San-germ. 
(abfque  Jiibio)  deed  in  Cod-  Reg.  Pari/. 

(in  sternum  pericis)  peribit  in  sternum, 
Snn-germ. 


f .  (  alia  Tilii)  alia  Terfona  Filii.  Cod. 
Ambrof.  item  Fortunat,  (alia  Spiritus)  alia 
Terfona  Sp.  fanft.  Cod.  Ambrof, 

perfonas 


luith   PARALLEL    P 

^erfonm  exprejfrs  fub  proprietate  difiin- 
guimus  —  Aliam  TMris,  aliam  FtUi,  aliam 
Spirit  us  fan^ii  —  perfonam. 

Pehgn Symbol. p. Z74..apud  Lambec.  Cdtal.Bibl.Vindob. 

6.  Confut antes  Arium,  tmdm  eandem- 
que  dicimus  Trinitatis  ejfe   Suhfiantidm. 

Pclag.  Symb. 

Patfis^  dr  Filii  &  Spiritus  fancii  una,m 
FirtHtem,  unam  Subfiantiam,  unum  Dei- 
tatem,  mmm  Majejiatem,  tmam  Gloriam. 

Auguft.  Tom.  8.  t.  74.4. 

7.  Qualis  efi  Pater  fecundum  Subflan- 
tiam,  Talem  genuit  T ilium :  ^  Spiritus 
fan£ius  —  eft  ejufdem  (jr  Ipfe  Subflantidi, 

cum  Patre  (^  Filio.  Fauftini.  Fid. 

8.  .^icquid  ad  Seipfum  dicitur  T>euSy 
(jr  de  ftngulis  perfonis  fmgulariter  dicitur, 
dr  fimuL  de  ipfa  Trinitate. 

Auguft.  Tom.  8.  ?.  838. 

9.  Magnus  Pater ■>  magnus  FiliuSj  mag- 
nus  Spiritus  fan£ius. 

Auguft.  Tom-  8.  p.  837. 

10.  Hoc  (jr  de  Bonitate,  c^^^  ^ter- 

6.  Sed  tamen  Patris  &  Filii,  8c  Spiritus  fandi  non 
alia  &  alia,  fed  una  eademque  natura.  Vincent,  c,  19. 


V 


8  Illud  prjecipue  tenearaus,  quicquid  ad  (e  dicitur 
praeftantiflima  ilia  8c  divina  fublimitas,  fubjiamialtter 
dici ;  quod  autem  ad  aliquid  uon  fubfianttdtter,  fed  re- 
lative :  Tamamque  vim  efle  ejufdem lubjlantm  in  Patre 
Sc  Filio  &  Spiritu  fanfto,  ut  quicquid  de  fingulis  ad 
feipfos  dicitur,  non  pluraltter  in'fumma,  Ced  fingula- 
ntey  accipiatur.  AHguftin,  Tom.  8.  p.  837. 


ASSAGES.  117 

Patris,    alia  Filii,   alia  Spiritus 
fandi. 


6.  Sed  Patris,  &  Filii,  &  Spi- 
ritus fandi,  una  eft  Divinitas, 
sequalis  gloria,  coaeterna  Mar- 
jeftas. 


7.  Qualis  Pater,  Talis  Filius", 
Talis  &  Spiritus   fainStus. 


8.  Increatus  Pater,  increatus 
Filius,  increatus  &  Spiritus 
fan£tus. 

9.  Immenfus  Pater,  immen- 
fus  Filius,  immenfus  &  Spiri- 
tus fandus. 

10.  ^ternus  Pater,  xternus 

6.  (Coiterna)  Codd.  nonnulli  habent  El 
Costerna.  Deeft  Et  in  Cod.  Ambrof.  8c  ia 
Forttmat.   6c  Brunon.  aliilque  multis. 

7  (  Talis  &  Spiritus  SanBus )  Ita  Codd. 
Ambrof.  Reg:  Far  if  C.  C.  C.  C.  i.  Cot- 
tori.  I.  Jacob,  i.  Fortunat.  item  Cxfarius 
Arelat.  antiquiffimus.  MSS.  recentiores,  8c 
editi  omittunt  Et. 

8  (Et  Spiritus  SanBids.)  Deeft  vocula  Et 
in  recentioribus  Codicibus  :  retinent  pleri- 
que  antiqniores  hoc  in  loco.  8c  iimiliter  in 
fubfequentibus,  ante  Spiritus  SanBus.  Quae 
le6lio,  opinor,  vera  eft,  ab  /utore  Symholi 
profeifiaj  Icilicet,  ad  majoren*  Emphalim, 
propter  H^ertfim  Macrdonian/im  nondum 
penitus  exftindlam.  Noftrum  autem  eft  ')yra- 
bolum  exhib^re  quale  fe  primitus  habuit. 


nitatC;, 


12,8  The  ORIGINAL  CREED 

nitatc,c>"  ^^  Omnipotcntia  De/  dicimn     Filius,  xternus  &  Spiritus  fan- 

flt.  Afguft.  tbid,  p.  839.  (^tlS. 

JEternus  Vater,  coat  emus  FiliuSj  coater- 
ntis  SftrittiS  f and  us.        Aug.  Tom.^.  p  f^^. 


1 2 .  iVcv/  tmne?i  tres  magnij  fed  unus 
nmgnus. 

Augufl.  Tom.Z.  p.  837. 

I  3 .  Itaque  Omfiipotens  Pater ,  Omiupo- 
tens   Fflius,  Ommpotem  Spiritus  fandus. 

Aug.  de  Trin.  /.  j-.  c.  S. 

14.  iV^^  tamert  Tres  omnipotentcs,  fed 
umis  omriipotcns.  ^"g-  "^'''• 

1 5 .  jyeus  Pater,  Deus  Filius,  Deus  Spi^ 

ritUS  fmctuS.  ^uguft.  Trin.  /.  8.  c.  1- 

(y.  Serm.  1 05 ,  p,  5-41.  Tow.  f . 

1 6.  Nee  tamen  tres  Bit  ■ fed  unus 

Deus.  Auguft.  ibid. 

1 7.  i'/V  &  Dominum  fi  qudras,  Sin- 
gulum  J^ernque  refpondeo  • 

Aug.  Tom.  8.    p.  729. 


1  r.  Et  tamen  non  Tres  x- 
tcrni,  fed  unus  a:tcrnus. 

12.  Si  cut  non  tres  increati, 
ncc  tres  immenfi,  fed  unus  in- 
crcatus,  &  unus  immenfus. 

1 3 .  Similiter  ,  omnipotens 
Pater,  omnipotens  Filius,  omni- 
potens &  Spiritus  fanclus. 

14.  Et  tamen  non  tres  omni- 
potentes,  fed  unus  omnipotens. 

1 5 .  Ita  Deus  Pater,  Deus  Fi- 
lius, Deus  &  Spiritus  lanclus. 

1 6.  Et  tamen  non  tres  Dii, 
led  unus  eft  Deus. 

17.  Ita  Dominus  Pater,  Do- 
minus  Filius,  Dominus  6c  Spiri- 
tus laniflus. 


1 1.  Nee  magnos  tres  dicimus,  fed  magnum  unum, 
ruia  non  participationc  magnirudinis  Deus  magnuseft, 
fed  feipfo  magno  magnus  cl>,t]uia  ipfc  fua  eft  magni- 
tude. Augtijl.  de  Trin.  1.  5-.  c.  lo- 

15  Scd  ne  duos  omnipotentes  inteliigas  praccaven- 
dum  eft:  licet  enim  &  Pater  fit  omnipotens,  8c  Filius, 
tamen  unus  ejl  omnipotens,  ficut  &  unus  eft  Dejs, 
quia  Patris  &  Fiiii  eadem  Omnipotetnia  eft,  ficut  & 
cadem  Deltas.  Taufitn.  p.  iij. 

14.  Sicut  fimul  illi  Tres  unas  Deus,  fie  fimul  illi 
Tre.<;  unm  omnipotens  eft ,  &  invifibilts  unus ,  Deus 
Pater  Sc  Filius  &;  Spiritus  Sanftus  eft.  .Au^ti/im.  Tom. 
8,  p.  6«;4.  Vid.  p.  86f. 

16  Unus  Deus  propter  infeparabilem  Divinitatem  ; 
ficut  unus  Omnipotens  propter  infeparabilem  Omnipo- 
tentiam.  ^:igiijl  de  Civit.  Dei.  p.  i()o. 

In  ilia  fumma  Trinitate,  qusincomparabilitcr  rebus 
omnibus  antecellit,  tanta  eft  inftparabilnas,  ut  cum 
Trinitas  Hominum  non  pofiTit  dici  unus  Homo,  Ilia 
unus  Dens  &  dicatur  &  fit.  Aug.  dc  Trin.  1.  ly.  c.  23. 


12.  {Untts  increatus,  ^  unus  immenfus) 
Unus  immenfus,  5c  unu?  increatus.  Cod. 
Ambi  of. 


14,.    {Et  tamen)   deeft   tamen    in   Cod. 
Ambrof. 


16.    {efi  Deus)  dccft    efl   in   MS.   Am- 
brof 


18.  Sed 


nuith    PARALLEL    PASSAGES, 


1 8.  Sed  fimul  omnes  non  tres  Dominos 
DeoSy  fed   urmm  Domimim    Beum  dtco. 

Auguft.  ibid. 

19.  Cum  de  iingulis  qudritur,  tmtif- 
quifque  eortim  ^  Bens,  c^  omnipotem  ejfe 
refpofideatur  j  cum  vero  de  omnibus  fimul, 
non  Tres  Bit.,  'vel  tres  omntpotenteSy  fed 
unus  Beus  omnipotens. 

Auguft.  de  civit.  Dei.  /.  II.  f.24.  />.  290. 

20.  Bicimus  Patrem  Beum  dc  nullo. 

(Auguft.  Tom.  5.  p.  680.; 

Non  enim   hubet   de   quo  fit^  dut  ex 

quo    procedat,  Aug.  Tom.  2-  p.  829. 

2 1 .  FHius  Patris  folius  —  Hunc  quippe 
de  fua  Subjlemtm  genuit,  non  ex  nihilo 

fecit.  Aug.  E/>.  1 70,  alias.,  66, 

2  2.  De  Filio  Spiritus  fan^us  proce- 
dere  reperitur.    (Auguft,  de  Trin.  /.  15.  c.  17.) 

Neque   natus  efi  ficut  Unige-aitus-,  neque 
fd^ius,  &:c.  ^^-  '•  S'  ''■  If-  ;>•  841. 

18.  Non  funt  enim  duo  Domini  ubi  Dominatus  unus 
eft;  quia  Pater  in  Filio,  &  Filius  in  Patre,  8c  idcoD^- 
tfunns  unus,  Ambrof.-de  Sp.  S.  1.  3.  c.  1  j*.  p.  686. 


V 


^  22.  Spiritus  quoquc  fanftus  non,  ficut  creatura, 
ex  nihilo  eft  fadus ;  fed  fie  a  Patre  Filioque  procedit, 
ut  nee  a  Filio,  nee  a  Patre  fitfaftus.  auguii.  ep.  170. 


1 8.  Et  tamen  non  Tres  Do- 
mini, fed  unus  eft  Dominus. 

19.  Qiiia  ficut  fingillatim 
unamquamque  Perfonam  & 
Deum  &  Dominum  confiteri 
Chriftiana    veritatc    comoeili- 

L 

murj  ita  tres  Deos,  aut  Do- 
minos dicere  Catiiolica  Reii- 
gione  prohibemur. 

20.  Pater  a  nullo  eft  fadus, 
nee  creatus,  nee  genitus. 


21.  Filius  a  Patre  folo  eft, 
non  fadus,  nee  creatus,  icd 
genitus. 

22.  Spiritus  fandus  a  Patre 
&  Filio,  non  fadus,  nee  crea- 
tus, nee  genitus  eft,  fed  pro- 
cedens. 

18.  (Efi  Dominus)  deeft  efi.  Cod,  A^n- 
brof. 

»9'  ('Et  Deum  ^  'Dominum)  Ira  MSj 
Ambrof,  &  MS.  OtiQrs.  Fcrtunat.  reaifijiT;e. 
Cod,  Fortunat.  Ambrof.  aiiique,  turn  MSSo 
turn  imprefii,  habent  Deum  8c  Dominum. 
Brunonis  Cod.  Deum  ac  Dominum.  San  ger- 
nianenlis,  Dominum  ^  Deum  Plerique 
editi,  Deum  aut  Dominum.  Quae  ledlio,  me 
judice,  omnium  peffima  eft. 

(Prohibemur)  MS.  Ambr.  legit,  prohibe- 
mus:  male. 

2  2.  {Sed  procedens)  Cod.  Ambrof.  zA]q^^ 
habet  ifta  j  Tatri  ^  Filio  coaermu  eft.  G'of- 
fa,  uti  videtur,  ex  margine  in  Textam  im- 
mifla:  Nifi  forte  Librariiis  verba  ilia  ex 
Bachtarii  F/V^,  quam  fimul  defcripferat,  hue 
tranftulerit;  five  ofcitanter,  five  majoris  e- 
lucidationis  gratia.  Vid.  Bach.ar.  Fid  apud 
Murator,  Tom,  2.  p.  16-  1 8. 


R 


3  3 .  Unus 


no  rhe    ORIGIN 

2  3 .  U^ms  ejl  Pater j  non  dm  vel  tres ; 
Cr  unm  Filitts^  non  dm  -vel  tres  j  o^-  unus 
f.mborum    Spirit  us ,    non    dm    vel    tres. 

Auguft.  Coiitr.  Maxim,  p.  "jiij. 

24.  In  hacTrinitate,  non  efi  aliudalio 
r/hyuSj  dut  minus.         Augurt.  lom.  f.  p.  948. 

Nee  enim  prorfus  aliquis  in  Trinitate 
Cradus:   nihil  quod  infer ius^  fuperiuj've 

dici  pojflt.  I'elagii  Symb. 

z  5 .  Vid.  fupr^y  in  Articulo  3 . 


2(5-  vide  fupra.  Artie,  z. 

27.  Dominus  (lutem  manens^ cum  difci- 
pidis  per  qufidragintd  Dies,  fignificure 
dig?iatus  e[l  qui^  per  iftud  Teinpus  ncccf- 
Ihiia  ell:  omnibus  Fides  Incarnationis 
Chfiili  5  cj^uA  infirmis  ejl  neceffdria. 

Auguft.  Serm.  264,  Tom  5.  />.  1077. 


AL    CREED 

23.  Unus  ergo  Pater,  non 
tres  Patres  5  unus  Filius,  non 
tres  Filii ;  unus  Spinrus  lanclus^ 
non  tics  Spiritus  lancli. 

24.  Et  in  hac  Trinitate  ni- 
hil prius  aut  poftcrius,  niiiil 
majus  aut  minus,  icd  totx  tres 
perlbnce  coxtcrnx  fibi  lUnt,  & 
"coxquales. 

25.  Ita  ut  per  omnia,  ficut 
jam  fupra  dictum  eft,  &  uni- 
tas  in  Trinitate,  &  Trinitas  in 
unitate  veneranda  fit. 

26.  Qui  vult  ergo  falvus 
clTe,  ita  de  Trinitate  fentiat. 

27.  Scd  neceflarium  eft  ad 
xternam  Salutem,  ut  Incarna- 
tionem  quoque  Domini  noftri 
Jefu  Chrifti  fidelitcr  crcdat. 


j(,Ai)TH'  uXX  etc,  TTwrtif,  (?  «5  't^o?,  y^  «?  7rwgjcxA(3T»5.P/^«</» 
Jgnnt.  ad    Philipp,  c.  i.  p.  i  i8.  Cotel.   ed, 

24.  Incrcaca  &  inaeftin-.abilis  Trinitas,  quz  unius 
eft  xternitaiis  &  Gloriae,  nee  Tempus  nee  Griduni 
vcl  pofterioris  recipit  vel  prioris.  Ambrof.  de  Fid.  L. 
4.  c.  II.  p.  547. 

If.  Ita  Tota  Deltas  fui  perfcdione  ajqualis  ed,  ut 
cxceptis  vocabulis  qiiK  proprictarcin  mdicant  Perfb- 
narum,  quicquid  de  una  perfona  dicitur,  de  tribus  di- 
gn'lTime  polTit  intell'gi-  Vdag.  Symb. 

16.  Si  quis  hanc  Kidcm  non  habct,  Cathol'ictts  dici 
non  potcd,  quia  Catholicam  non  tt-nct  Fidcmi  6c  ideo 
Llienus  ell  ac  profanus,  &  adverfus  veritatem  rcbcilis 
Fides  S.  ^itnhrcf.  apud  LatnOec.  Catalog.  Bibl.  Vindob. 
L.   ».  p.  268. 

27.  Ideo  Converfatio  ipfius  in  Carnc  port  Refurre- 
f^ionen  per  qiiadraginta  dies  erat  nccefTaria,  ut  de* 
-•Donffrarct  tarn  diu  clfc  necelTariam  Fidcm  Incarnatio* 
lis  Chrifli  quamdiu  in  ilia  vita  docetur  Area  in  dilu- 
ii;(i  flu^ar^,     ^ngtiji,  Tom,  f.  p.  1078. 


24.  (Et  inh»c)6tt(i  et  in  Cod,  Smitrm^ 


2S.  rro' 


tWl 


ith   PARALLEL    PASSAGES, 


2  8.  Promde,  Chriftm  Jefus,  Dei  Fi- 
liusy  eft  dr  Dei4S  ^'  Homo, 

Augull.  Euchir.  Tom.  6-  p.  no. 


19.  Deus  ante  ormiin  fdcula:  Homo 
in  noftro  faculo  —  unus  Dei  Filius,  idem- 
que  Hominis  Filius.  Auguft.  ibid. 

30.  Confitemur  in  Chrifto  unam  ejfe 
Filii  perfonamy  ut  dicamm  duas  eJfe  per- 
feftas  atque  integras  Subftantias,  id  eft, 
Deitatis,  &  Humanitatis  qu^  ex  anima 
continetur  (jr  corpore.  ?t\%g,  symb. 

3  I .  Mqualem  Patri  fecundum  Divi- 
nitatem.  Minor  em  autem  Pat  re  fecundum 
Carnemy    hoc  eft  ^   fecundum  Hominem, 

Auguft.  "Epifi.  137.  />.  406. 

3  2,  Agnofcamus  geminam  Suhftantiam 


Mi 

28.  Eft  ergo  Fides  re61:a,  ut 
credamus  &  confiteamur,  quod 
Dominus  nofter  Jefus  Chriftus, 
Dei  Filius,  Deus  pariter  &  Ho- 
mo eft. 

29.  Deus  eft  ex  SubftantiaPa- 
tris  ante  faecula  genitus :  Homo 
ex  Subftantia  Matris  in  fxculo 
natus. 

3  o.  Perfedus  Deus,  perfedus 
Homo  ex  anima  rationali  & 
humana  carne  fubfiftens. 


3 1 .  ^qualis  Patri  fecundum 
Divinitatem  :  Minor  Patre  fe- 
cundum Humanitatem. 

32.  Qui    licet    Deus   fit  3c 


19.  Idem  ex  Patre  ante  frcula  genitus,  idem  in 
fzculo  ex  matre  generatus;  Viricent,  c.  ip. 


30  Adverfus  Arium,  veram  8c  perfeftam  VerbiDi- 
vinitatem  j  adverfus  Apollinarem,  perfeftam  Hominis 
in  Chrifto  defend imus  veritatem.  Auguft.  Op.  Tom. 
f.  Append,  p.  591. 

Perfeftus  Deus,  perfeftus  Homo:  in  Deo  fumma 
Divinitas,  in  Homine  plena  Humanitas:  quippe  qux 
Animam  fimul  habcat  8c  Carnem.  Vincent,  c.  19. 

;2.  Caro  Chriftus,  8c  Ant'ma  Chriftus,  8c  Verbum 
Chriftus ;  nee  tamen  tria  Hsec  rres  Chrifti,  fed  unus 
Chriftus.  Auguft,  m  Johan.  p.  612. 


l8.  Csnfiteamur  quod)  Ita  Coi.Ambrof. 
atque  editi  nonnulli.  Plures  habent  (j«x«: 
sAmbroftana  Ledlio  praeferenda. 

{T>eui  pariter  ©  Himo  eft)  Ita  Codd.  Be- 
ned.  I.  Cotbertin.  Jacob.  I.  8v  Fortunnt.  Am- 
brof.  &  San  germ,  legjnr,  0>  Be  .i  pariter 
(^  Homo  eft    Editi,  Deus  ^  Homo  eft. 

Xg  Ex  ftibftantia)  Colbert  n.  de  fubftan- 
tia:  8c  mfra,  de  fubfttintia  mutris.  (Homo) 
Ambrof.  Cod  legit  Qr>  Homo  eft.  Fortunat. 
Et  Homo.  Poft,  matris,  San  germ.  Cod.  ha- 
bet.  in  ficulo  genitus  perfecius  H^mo. 

30.  (Rationaii)  rationabili.  Codd.  Am- 
brof.  Colbert.  8c  Sm-germ* 


R 


chrifti  i 


i$z  The  ORIGI 

Chrifli ;  divmam  fcilicet  qua  dtqualis  efl 
Patrij  hiimdndm  qua  major  cjl  Pater :  U- 
tnimque  auteryi'  fimul  non  duo,  fed  unus 

elt  Chriftus.  ^"g-  Traft.in  Joh.  p. 699. 

3  3 .  Verbum  caro  factum  efi,  a  Divini- 
tate  came  fufcepta^  non  in  carnem  Divi- 
nitate  mutata. 

Auguft.  Enchirid.  c.  jf . 

3  4.  Idem  Deus  qui  HomOj  ^  qui  Deus 
idem  Homo:  non  confufione  nature,  fed 
unit  ate  perfona.  Auguft.  Tom.':,.  ;.  gSy. 

3  5 .  Sicut  enim  unus  efl  Homo  Anima 
rationalis  cr  Caro  5  fc  unus  eft  Chriftus 
Deus  d^  Homo. 

Auguft.  Traft.  in  Joh.  />•  699. 

36.  Defcendit  ad  inferna,  tertia  die 
refurrexit  a  mortuis. 

Symb.  Aquilciae,  apud  Ruffin, 


NAL    CREED 

Homo,    non    duo   tamen,  fed 
unus  eft  Chriftus. 


53.  Unus  autcm,  non  con- 
vcrfione  Divinitatis  in  Carnem, 
fed  adfumptionc  Humanitatis 
in  Deum. 

34-  Unus  omnino ,  non 
confufione  Subftantia;,  fed  uni- 
tate  Perfonx. 

3  5.  Nam  ficut  Anima  ratio- 
nalis &  Caro  unus  eft  Homoj 
ita  Deus  &  Homo  unus  eft 
Chriftus. 

3  6.  Qui  pan  us  eft  pro  Salute 
noftra,  defcendit  ad  Inferos, 
tertia  die  refurrexit  a  mortuis. 


3}.  Nemo  ergo  credat  Dei  Filium  converfum  8c 
cooimutatum  cfle  in  Hominis  Filium;  fed  potius  cre- 
damus,  &  non  confumpta  divin3,8c  perfeile  aflumpti 
iv.imani  fubftantia ,  manentem  Dei  Filium  faftum 
Ilomitiis  Filium.  auguft,  Tom.  5    p   887. 

Deus  ergo  Hominem  alTumpfit,  Homo  in  Deum 
tranGvit:  non  naturx  verfibilitate,  ficut  ApollinariJiA 
'Jjcunt,  fed  Dei  dignatione.  Gennad'  Eccl.  Dogm.'c.  2. 


5<5.  Quis  crgo.niriinfidelis,  ncgaverit  {u\Ke apud  In- 
feros Chriftum?  ■"    '        — 

Quamobrem  tcncamus  firminime  quod  fides  habet 

fundatiffima  Audtoritatc  firmatum •&  caetera 

»jU2e  de  illo  tcftatiflima  veriratc  confcripta  funt;  in 
quibus  etiam  Hoc  eft,  quod  /»/>«</  Inferos  fmt.  Auguft. 
i9.  1C4.  p.  jr74,  Sl^ 


53.  (In  carnem)  in  carne.  MSB.  ^ml>rof. 
Colbert,  San  germ,  aliique  plurimi,  &  ve- 
tufti.  Habenr  ctiam  in  Deo,  pro,  in  Deum. 
At  multi  etiam  Codices, cum  FortunaiiCod. 
>Atnbrofi.Tio,  receptam  leftionem  prxferunt ; 
quE  utique  prasferenda  vidctur.  Cod.  San- 
germ-  pro  converfione  habet  converfatio- 
ne.  Cod.  Colbert:  totam  hanc  pericopen 
fie  exhibet;  Unus  autem,  non  ex  eo  quod 
/it  in  carne  converfa  Divinitas,  fed  quia  esi 
in  Deo  adfumpta  dignnnter  Hum.initas, 

34.  (Unus  omnino)  unus  Chriftus  eft.  Col- 
bert. 

3f.  (Nam  ftcut^yc.) Totum  omittitCod. 
Colbertinuf,.  Scilicet,  uti  credo,  nc  Simile 
illud  in  crroris  fui  patrocinium  arriperent 
Monophyfitt.  {Rationalis)  rationabilis.  Am- 
brof. 

36.  (ad  inferos)  ad  infernos.  Cod.  San- 
germ,  nd  inferna  defcendens.  Cod.  Colbertin. 

(Tertia  die)  decfl:  in  Cod.  Ambrof.  San- 
germ.  Cotton.  I.Jacob.  I.  (refurrexit)  fur- 
rcxit :  Cod.  Ambrof.  Eortunat. 


57.  Afcend' 


'■with  PARALLEL    P 

37.  Afcendit  ad  cdos,  fedet  W  dex- 
ter am  Patris  5  mde  vent  urns  judkare  'vi- 
vos cr  mortuos. 

Symb.  Roman.  Vet. 

38.  Refurre^ionem  etiam  carms  con- 
fitemur  ^  credimuSj  ut  dicamus  nos  in 
eadem  qua  nunc  fumus  veritate  mem- 
brorum  ejje  reparandos. 

Pelag  Symb^ 

39.  Et  precedent  qui  bona  fecerunt-, 
in  Refurreliionem  vitaj  qui  vero  mala 
egerunt  in  RefurreBionem  judicii.  Jo'*-  f-  ^^^ 

Ibunt  Hi  in  fupplicium  sternum ^  jujii 
autem  in  <vitam  dternafn.       ^^"-  *f-  46* 

40.  Cavete,  dile6iijjimij  ne  quis  vos  ab 
Ecclefix  CatholiccB  Tide  ac  mutate  fe- 
ducat.  .^i  enim  njobis  aliter  Eva7igeli- 
zaverit  prdterquam  quod  accepifiis^  Ana- 
thema fit,  Auguft.  Turn.  S'  h  f9*- 


58.  Si  id  refurgere  dicitur  quod  cadit,  care  ergo 
noftra  in  veritate  refurget,  licut  in  veritate  cadit.  Et 
non  l'ecundiinaO''/^fWfw?,  immutatio  corporuraerit  ^f. 
Gennad.  Eccl.  Dogmat.  c.  f- 

3^9.  Poft  Rerurre<flionem  &:  judicium,  non  creda- 
mus  reftitutionem  futuram,  ficut  Origenes  dclirat,  ut 
Daemones  vel  impii  Homines  poft  Turmenta  quafi 
Tuppliciis  expiirgati,  vel  ////  in  Aiigelicam  qua  creati 
funt  redeant  Dignitatem,  vel  Ijii  juftorum  Societate 
donentiir.  Gennad.  ibid.  c.  9. 

'^•jTui.  F-fend — Jgmt'  ad  Phtlipp  p.  1 1  §. 


AS  SAGES,  133 

37.  Adfcendit  ad  Carlos^  fe- 
det ad  dcxteram  Patris?  inde 
venturus  judicare  vivos  &  mor- 
tuos. 

3  S.  Ad  cLijiis  adventum  om- 
nes  Homines  refurgere  iiabent 
cum  corporibus  fuis,  &  red- 
dituri  funt  de  Fad:is  propriis 
rationem. 

39.  Et  qui  bona  egerunt, 
ibunt  in  vitam  asternam,  qui 
vero  mala,  in  Ignem  ster- 
num. 

40.  Hsec  eft  Fides  Catho- 
lica,  quam  niil  Qiiifque  fide- 
liter  ,  firmiterque  crediderit ,, 
falvus  efl'e  non  poterit> 


IT.  (Sedet.)  Sedit.  Cod-  Amhr. (Dexterami 
Tatris)  Ita  Codd.  Ambrof.  &  Fortunat,  8c 
Symb.  Roman.  Vet.  Dexteram  Patris  Om- 
nipotent is.  Cod.  San  germ.  Dextram  Om^ 
nipotentis.  Cod.^runoim.  Dexteram  Dei  Pa- 
tris  fedet,  fictit  vohis  in  Symbolo  traditum  efi. 
Cod.  Colbert.  Dexteram  Dei  Vatris  Omnipo- 
tent is.  Codd.  reccntiores,  cum  excufis. 

38.  (Refurgere  habent  cum  corporibus  fuis,. 
(Q>)  dcfunt  in  Cod.  Ambrof.  Colbert inus  le« 
git ;  ad  cMJus  adventum  erunt  omnes  Homi- 
nes fine  dubio  in  pits  corporibus  refurredmri, 
Scd  nihil  mutamus. 

39.  (Egerunt)  egerint.  Cod.  Ambrof.  To' 
turn  hunc  Articulum  fie  legit  Colbertinus -, 
Ut  qui  bona  egerunt,  eant  in  vitam  itetnami 
qui  mala  tn  ignem  .iternum. 

(.^ui  vero)  Cod.  Ambrof.  8c  Cotton,  I. 
omittunt  vero.  Codices  nonnulli  Jegunt,  ^ 
qui  vero:  alii,  1^  qui  mala. 

40.  ( ^iifque)  Cod.  Ambroid  uniifquif.. 
que.  Colbertinus  fie.  pergitj  Hsc  efi  lidti 
fanBa  ^  catholica,  quam  omnis  Homo,  qui. 
ad  vitam  Aternam  pervenire  defiderat,  fcir»- 
integre  debet,  ^  fideliter  cuflodire. 

CHAP, 


134  A  COMMENTARY  on 

CHAP.     X. 
A  Commentary  on  the  Athanafian  Creed\ 

I     TJ/HOSOEVER  will  be  faved,  before  all  Things  it  is  necef. 

^-^     f^ry  that  He  hold  the  Catholick  Faith. 

By  the  Words,  before  all  Things^  is  meant  in  the  firfl  Place, 
Faith  goes  before  PraUice  5  and" is  therefore  firfl  in  Order,  tho' 
Praciice  may  be,  comparatively,  more  confiderable,  z^A  firfl  in 
Value^  as  the  End  is  above  the  Means, 

2.  which  Faith  except  every  one  do  keep  -whole  ^  anct  uitdefiled^ 
'ivithout  doubt  He  fhall  perifh  everlaflingly. 

which  Faith,  that  is,  the  Catholick  Faith  before  fpoken  of, 
which  is  another  Name  for  the  true  and  right  Faith  as  taught 
in  Scripture  ;  called  Catholick,  or  Univerjal,  as  being  held  by  the 
Vniverfal  Church  of  Chrift,  againfl  which  the  Gates  of  Hell  fhall 
nos^t  prevail.  The  meaning  then  is,  that  every  one  is  obliged, 
under  pain  of  Damnation,  to  preferve,  as  far  as  in  Him  lies,  the 
true  and  right  Faith,  in  oppofltion  to  Thofe  that  endeavor  to 
corrupt  it  cither  by  taking  from  it,  or  adding  to  it.  That 
Men  fhall  perifh  Eternally  for  unbelief,  for  reje&ing  the  Faith 
in  the  Lump,  cannot  be  doubted  ;  when  it  is  exprefsly  faid 
{Mark  16.  i 6.)  He  that  believeth  not  foall  be  damned:  And  as 
to  rejeding  any  particular  Branch,  or  Article  of  it,  it  muft  of 
confequence  be  a  Sin  againft  the  Whole ;  againft  Truth,  and 
Peace,  and  therefore  damnable  in  it's  own  Nature,  as  all  wilful 
Sins    are  without  Repentance.     As   to  the  Allowances  to  be 

a  In  K.  Edw.ir<i'j  Prayer  book,  A.  D.  i  f  49.  ;/  is  barely  intituled.  This  ConfcfTion  of  our 
Chriftian  Faith:  And  it  was  ordered  to  be  fong,  or  fayed,  upon  Six  Feajls  in  the  year.  At 
theRevifal  0/  the  Common-Prayer, M«</cr  J^^Elii.  it  was  appointed  to  be  ufed  on  feveral  Feafts 
in  the  year,  the  -whole  Number  Thirteen.  But  the  Title  Jlill  continued  the  fame,  till  the  laji 
Review  under  Charles  the  Second;  when  were  added  there'o,  connionly  called  the  Creed 
ot  Sr.  Arhan^us;  Frofn  whuh  Time  the  running  Title  has  been  S.  Athanalius'j  Creed,  as  be- 
fort  Quicunque  vult,  in  our  Prayer  Books. 

b  In  K.  Edward'i  Praytr  Book,  it  was  read  ho\y,  injlead  of  whole,  by  »  miftake,  I  fuppofe, 
of  the  Printer;  which  m^jlAke  was  continwd  through  feveral  Editions  afterwards.  I  have  ob- 
ferveJ  it  in  an  Edition  of  the  year  1600,  by  the  Quccn'j  Printer,  I  fuppoje,  the  old  way  of 
writing  hoolc,  and  hole,  for  whole,  might  occafion  it, 

made 


tk   ATHANASIAN   CREED.  135 

made  for  rnvmcM  Ignorance,  Prejudice,  or  other  unavoidable 
Infirmities;  as  they  will  be  pleadable  in  the  Cafe  of  any  other 
Sin  fo  may  they,  and  will  they  alfo  be  pleadable  m  This :  But 
it  was  foreign  to  the  purpofe  of  the  Creed  to  take  notice  of  ^ 
in  This  cafe  mrtkuUrly,  when  it  is  common  to  all  cales  ot  like 
Nature,  and  is   always  fuppofed,  and  mderjlood,  tho'  not  fpeci- 


ally  mention'd 


^.  And  the  C^tholick  Faith  is  This-,  thM  we  worfhtp  one  God  m 
Trinity,  md  Trinity  in  Unity.  ^    .    ,.  ,    -r  •  u        j 

Orie  of  the  Principal  Branches  of  the  Catholick  Faith,  and 
which  is  of  neareft  Concernment  cfince  our  Wbrjhip  depends 
upon  it,  and  the  main  Body  of  the  Chriftian  Religion  is  bound 
up  in  it)  is  the  Dodrine  of  a  Trinity  in  Unity,  of  Three  Perfons 
and  one  God,  recommended  in  our  Baptifm  as  the  Objed  of  our 
Faitk  Hove,  and  Worjhip.  He  that  takes  upon  Him  to  corrupt, 
or  deprave  This  moll  Fundamental  part  of  a  Chriftian's  Faith, 
cannot  be  innocent;  it  being  his  boundenDuty  to  maintain  and 
preferve  it,  as  He  will  anfwer  it  another  Day. 

4.    Neither    confounding    the    Perfons,    nor    dividing    the    Sub" 

■fiance. 

Here  would  be  no  need  of  thefe  particular  Cautions,  or  cri- 
tical Terms,  in  relation  to  This  Point,  had  Men  been  content 
with  the  plain  primitive   Faith  in   it's  native  Simplicity.     But, 
as  there  have  been  a   Set  of  Men,  called  Sahellims,  who  have 
erroneouHy  taught  that   the  Father,  Son,    and   Holy-Ghoft  are 
all  one  Perfon,  who  was  incarnate,  and  fuffered,  and  rofe  again;, 
making  the  Father  (and  Holy-Ghoft)  to  have  fufered,  as  well 
zs^thc^Son  (from  thence  falfd  Patripaffians)  hence  it    becomes 
neceftary  to   caution  every    pious  Chriftian  againfl:    confomdmg 
the  Perfons  as  Thofe  Men  have  done.  And  as  there  have  been 
Others,  particularly  the  Arians,  who  have  pretended  vcry^  falfe- 
ly,  that  the  Three    Perfons  arc  Three  Suhftmces,  and  of  dijje^ 
rent  Kinds,  divided  from   each  other,  one  being   before^  the  o- 
ther,  exifting  when  the   other   two    were    not,    as   alfo  being 
prefent,  where  the  other  two  are  not  prefent  5  Thefe  falfe  and. 
dangerous  Tenets  having  been  fprcad  abroad,  it  is  become  ne.= 
ccftary  to  give  a  Caution  againft  dividing  the  Suhftmce,  as  1  hele. 

have 


1^6  A  COMMENTARr  on 

have   done,   very    much    to    the   Detriment   of   Sobriety  and 
Truth. 

5 .  For  there  is  ori-e  Pcrfo'a  of  the  Tuther^  Another  of  the  Son, 
And  Another  of  the  Holy-Chof. 

The  SabeUiam  therefore  were  extremely  to  blame  in  confound- 
ing the  Perfons,  and  running  them  into  one,  taking  away  the 
DiJlincHcn  of  Perfons  plainly  taught  in  Scripture. 

6.  But  the  Godhead  of  the  Father^  of  the  Son^  and  of  the  Holy- 
Ghoji  is  all  one,  the  Glory  equal,  the  Majefly  coeternal. 

The  Arians  therefore  were  equally  to  blame  for  dividing  the 
Suhfia?zce,  and  Godhead  in  the  manner  before  hinted.  To  be 
a  httle  more  particular  on  this  Head,  we  may  go  on  to  open 
and  explain  This  Unity  of  Godhead,  equality  of  Glory,  and  co- 
eter?uty  of  Majcfty. 

7.  Such  as  the  Father  ist  fuch  is  the  Son,  and  fuch  is  the  Holy- 
Ghofl. 

That  is,  as  to  their  Suhflance,  and  Godhead,  there  is  no  Dif- 
ference or  hicquality  amongfl  them  5  tho'  there  is  a  Difference 
in  relpecl  of  fome  perfonal  Ads,  and  Properties,  as  fhall  be 
obferved  in  it's  Place.  In  real  Dignity,  and  Perfe^fio-n  They  are 
equal,  and  U72divided,  as  in  the  Inftances  here  following. 

8.  The  Father  uncreate,  the  Son  uncreate,  and  the  Holy-Ghoji 
uncreate. 

Thefe  Three  Perfons  were  never  brought  into  Being  by  the 
will  of  another  ;  They  are  no  Creatures,  nor  Changeable,  as  Crea- 
tures are  5  They  are  all  infinitely  removed  from  dependence  or 
precarious  Exigence,  one  as  much  as  another,  and  every  one  as 
much  as  any  one :  They  exift  in  the  higheft,  and  moft  cmpha- 
tical  Senfe  of  Exifting,  which  is  called  Necejjary-Exifience,  op- 
pofed  to  contingent  or  precarious  Exigence,  hi  a  word  5  every 
Perfon  muft,  and  cannot  but  cxiih  and  all  muft  exift  together, 
having  the  fame  unchangeable  Pcrfcdions. 

9.  The  Father  inco?nprehenjible,  the  Son  incomprehenfible,  and  the 
Holy-Ghof  incomprehenfible . 

Thefe  Words  are  not  a  juft  Tranflation  of  the  Latin  Origi- 
nal, tho'  containing  as  true  and  juft  a  Propofition  as  the  Latin 
Words- do.     Jmme?jfus  fignilics  onmiprefcnt,    rather  than  i?icom- 

prehenfible. 


the  ATHANASIAN  CREED.  i  37 

frehenfible  in  the  modern  Senfe  of  incomprchcnfible.  But  if 
by  mcomprehenfible  be  underftood,  not  to  be  comprehended  with- 
in any  Bounds,  it  will  then  anfwer  to  the  Lmn  pretty  nearly. 
The  TranHator  here  followed  the  Greek  Copy  %  taking  perhaps 
the  Greek  to  be  the  Original  Language  wherein  the  Creed  was 
written.  However,  fome  Lati?ts  have  underftood  by  irnmeizfusy 
incomprehenfihle  ^  in  fuch  a  Senfe  as  has  been  hinted. 

ID.    The  Father   eternal^   fhe  Soii   eternal^    and  the  Holy-Ghofi 

eternal. 

None  of  the  Perfons  ever  began  to  be,  nor  ihall  ever  ccafc 
to  be  5  They  always  were,  they  always  will  be,  and  muft  be  y 
the  fame  yefteiday,  to  day,  and  for  ever. 

II.  And  yet  They  are  not  Three  Eternals,  but  one  Eternal. 

Some  Account  ought  to  be  given  of  this  manner  of  fpeaking, 
becaufe  it  often  occurs  in  the  Creed,  and  may  be  thought  mod  apt 
to  offend  the  malicious,  or  to  mi  (lead  the  unwary.  The  way  of 
fpeaking  came  in  a  little  after  the  middle  of  the  fourth  Cen- 
tury, and  then  only  into  the  Latin  Church  5  for  the  Greeks  ne- 
ver ufed  it,  but  taught  the  fame  Things  under  a  different  Form 
of  Expreillon.  What  Creeks  and  Lati-ns  Both  intended  was, 
that  as  the  Three  Perfons  are  one  Subfta?^ce  and  one  God,  fo  every 
divine  Perfedion,  and  every  fubflantial  Attribute,  belonging  to 
any  one  Perfon,  is  common  to  all  5  and  there  is  nothing  peculiar 
to  any  one  but  the  divine  Relations :  To  the  Father,  Paternity 
and  whatever  it  implies  or  carries  with  it  j  to  the  Son,  Filiation  5 
to  the  Holy-Ghoft,  Proceffion.  In  This  Account,  Eternity,  Im- 
menfity.  Omnipotence,  and  the  like,  being  fubflantial  Attributes, 
ar>  common  to  all  the  Three  Perfons  5  who  have  therefore  one 
Eternity  J  one  Immenfity,  one  Omnipotence  ^  and  fo  on,  as  one  Sub- 
fiance  and  one  Godhead:  Thus  ^tcc  Greeks  and  Latins  agreed  both 
in  DoBrine,  and  Exprejjion.     But  the  Latins^  building  hereupon. 


a  There  are  txoo  pritjted  Greek  Copies,   which  rend  cit^af.iBlx,-;^.®-' ,  SrephensV  firfi  printed 


man,  ity^srps?.  The  Saxon.  French,  and  old  Englifli  Verfions  exaBly  foilojo  the  Latin  originsil. 
b  Immenltis  Pater:  non  mole,  fed  poreftate  omnia  concludente.  Vel  immenfus,  id  cll, 
incomprehenfibilis.  Abaclard.  m  Syrnb.  Athanaf.  p.  368. 

S  thought 


138  //    COMMENTARY  on 

tiiought  it  very  allowable  to  go  a  little  fluthcr,  (which  the 
Greeks  did  notj  and  to  cxprefs  the  fame  Thing  by  laying,  of 
the  Three  Pcrfons,  that  They  are  o;/e  Eternal,  one  Immcnje,  C7:c 
Omnipotent^  one  Holy,  one  Uncreated,  (5cc.  And  This  was  the 
current  Language  at  the  making,  and  before  the  making  of 
this  Cixed.  The  Armns  were  the  Ible  Occaflon  of  introducing 
Both  Kinds  of  Expreflion,  which  mufl:  therefore  be  interpreted 
accordingly.  Tn^o  Things  were  deAgn'd  by  them  :  One,  to  ob- 
viate the  Arhvn  Tenet,  that  the  Three  Perlbns  were  differing  in 
kindy  and  in  degree,  as  being  oi  unequal  Pcrfcdlions;  the  other 
to  obviate  the  Arian  Charge,  or  Calumny,  upon  the  Church  as 
making  Three  Gods.  In  regard  to  the  former,  when  the  Catho- 
licks  Ipeak  of  one  Vhinity,  they  intend  equal  l^iviniry,  not  Di- 
vinities differing  in  kind,  or  degree :  And  in  regard  to  the  lat- 
ter, They  further  mean  undivided  and  infeparahle  Divinity,  not 
Many  Divinities.  The  true  meaning  then,  and  the  full  mean- 
ing of  the  Exprcffions  of  the  Creed  will  be  very  clear  and 
obvious.  The  Three  Perfons  arc  equal  in  Duration,  and  un- 
divided too  5  one  Eternity,  (one,  bccaufe  undivided,  and  infc- 
parable)  is  common  to  all,  and  therefore  They  are  not  Three 
Eternals,  but  o'ne  Eternal. 

The  oldeft  Writers  who  have  ufed  this  way  of  Expreflion, 
are,  fo  far  as  I  have  obferved,  Amhrofe,  Faujlinus,  and  Aujlin: 
And  their  meaning  in  it  is  very  plain  and  certain  from  the 
Places  themfelves  where  They  make  ufe  of  it.  Eulgentius,  who 
came  not  long  after  them,  fometimcs  falls  into  the  lame  man- 
ner of  Expreflion "  5  but  fparingly,  as  if  He  either  did  not  fully 
attend  to  it,  or  had'  fome  fcruplc  about  it :  for  his  general 
way  is  to    fay,  not   three  eternal  Gods,  hut  one  eternal  God^^  in- 

a  Relativa  nomina  Trinitatem  factunt,  ejfentialii  vcro  ndlo  irodo  triplicantur.  Dcus 
Parcr,  Dcus  Filiiis,  Dcus  Spiritus  fanftus.  Bonus  Pater,  bonus  Filiiis,  lionus  Spiritus 
fanftus.  Pius  Pater,  plus  Filius,  pius  Spiritus  fandlus.  Juftus  Pater,  juftus  Filius.juftus 
&  Spiritus  fjirftus.  Omnipotens  Pater,  omnipotcns  Filius,  omnipotens  ?c  Spiritus  fan- 
flrus.  Et  tamcn  non  dicimus  ncc  Tres  Deos,  ncc  Trei  banos,  nee  Tres  pios,  ncc  Tres  jtifioj, 
nee  Tret  o7nnifoter.tfs,  icd  unum  Dcum,  bonum,  pium,  juflum,  omnipotentem,  Patrcm 
ik  Fili'.im  Sc  Spiritum   fanftun.   Fulgent,  dc  Trin.  c-  i.  p.  ^;;o. 

b  ^ternus  eft  line  iiiitio  Pater,  xrerncs  eft  fine  initio  Fiiius,  fctcrnus  eft  Hue  initio  Spi- 
ritus fandtus:  ncc  tamcn  ires  Dii  astcrni  fed  unus  aeternus  Vetu.  Fulgent,  ad  Fcrrard. 

.  -  .      flead 


the   ATHAKASIAK    CREED.  lyj 

dead  of  the  other  in  the  Creed  5  and  fo  in  the  like  Cafes. 
Which  indeed  is  a  very  infipid  and  dull  way  ot  Exprellmg  it 
and  if  applied  to  every  Article  in  the  Athm^im  Creed,  would 
make  it  a  very  flat  compofition  in  comparifon  to  what  it  is. 
It  is  true  that  all  at  length  refolves  into  This,  that  the  Three 
Perfons  are  not  Three  Gods,  but  o-aeGod:  This  is  the  Ground  and 
Foundation,  and  the  other  is  the  Superftrudure.  But  then  it 
is  a  fine  and  elegant,  as  well  as  a  folid  Supeuftrudure;  improv- 
ino-  the  Thought,  and  carrying  on  a  Train  of  new  and  diiimdt 
Proportions,  and  not  meerly   a  jejune  and   faplefs   Repetition 

of  the  fame  Thing. 

\z.  As  dfo  there  are  not  Three  Jncomprehenfibles,  nor  Three  Un- 
created-, but  one  Uncreated,  and  one  Incomprehenjihle\  ^ 

Not  Three  Incomprehenfibles,  6-c.  as  not  differing  either  ill 
kind  or  de>?ree  of  Incomprehenfibility,  nor  yet  divided  m  thole 
Perfedions-  But  one  Incomprehenfible,  and  one  Uncreated, 
one  as  to  the  kind  and  degree  of  thofe  Attributes,  or  Perfeftionsi 
and  one  in  mmher  too,  as  much  as  Union,  and  Injepar ability 
infinitely  dole  and  perfed,  can  be  conceived   to  make,  or  do 

really  make  one.  ,1    ■  1  ^ 

^\.  So  likewife  the  Father  is  Almighty,  the  Son  Almighty,  ana 

the  Holy-Ghoft  Almighty.  ^ 

Equally  Almighty  every  one,  without  any  Dijjerence,  or  in- 
equality  in  Kind,  or  Degree. 

1  A,.  And  yet  They  are  not  Three  Almighties,  but  one  Almighty, 
One  Omnipotence,  or  Almightinefs  is  common  to  all  Threes 
One  in  kind  as  being  of  e(iual  extent,  and  equally  reaching  over 
all ;  and  one  alio  in  nm^ber,  becaufe  of  the  inleparable  Uimit 
among  the  Three,  in  the  inward  Perfedion,  and  outward  Exer^ 
cife,  or  Operation. 

Immenfus  eft  Pater,  fed  immenfus  eft  Filius,  &  immenfus  eft  &  Spititui  iaac.ui . 
tamen  tres  D/V  immenfi,  fed  unus  Tizm  immenius.  Tuhent.   ibid.  P-  i-.;- 

Omnipotens  eft  Paten  fed  omaipctens  eft  Filius,  omn;porens  eft  ^P""'^^V  <f  Snirin,c 
tamen  tres  D«  omnipotentes,  fed  unus  D«/i  omnipotens  eft  Pater,  &  Hl.us,  i5C  ^pintiu 

fandius.  Yidgent,   ibid.  ■  ,.  ,r        ;  r      u    'mo-'- 

a  Here  again,  one  m^v  P^^^ive  what  Copy  our  Tranjlators  followed,  namely,  Bry.io^- 
Greek  Copy.  ^11  the  other  Copies,  Greek  and  Latin,  place  the  words  in  a  different  order 
Not  three  uncreated,  nor  three  incomprehenfib'.es,  but  one  uncrer.ted  ^c.  Ofy,  ^^''^f' 
brofian  Latin  Copy  reads,  not  three  uncreated,  nor  three  incomprehenfibles  {itnmenje)  btit 
cne  incomprehenfible  (immenfe)  and  one  uncreated. 

S    2  ^  ' 


140  A    COMMENTARY  on 

i-^.  So  the  Father  is  God,  the  Son  is  God,  and  the  Holy-Ghofl  is  God. 

The  whole  Three  Peiibns  equally  divifie,  and  enjoying  every 
Perfeclion  belongmg  to  the  Godhead. 

I  6.  And  yet  They  are  not  Three  Gods,  hut  one  God. 

Becaufe  the  Godhead,  or  Divinity  whieh  belongs  to  one,  be- 
longs to  all :  The  fame  in  kind  becaufe  of  the  Equality,  and 
the  lame  in  number  becaufe  infeparably  one. 

17.  So  likeivife  the  Father  is  Lord,  the  Son  Lord,  and  the  Holy- 
Ghofi  Lord. 

Ha\'ing  the  fame  right  of  Dominion,  and  of  equal  Dominion  ; 
and  equally  exercifing  it,  when,  and  where  They  pleafe. 

18.  And  yet  not  Three  Lords,  but  one  Lord. 

Becaufe  one  Dominion  is  common  to  all  Three,  jointly  pof- 
feflinii;,  and  jointly  exercifing  every  Branch  of  it  j  undividedly, 
and  infeparably  bearing  fupreme  Rule  over  all. 

19.  For,  like  as  we  are  compelled  by  the  Chrijlian  Verity  to  acknow- 
ledge every  ?  erf  on  by  Him f elf  to  be  God  and  Lord:  So  are  vje  forbidden 
by  the  Catholick  lieligioti  to  fay,  there  be  Three  Gods  or  Three  Lords. 

That  is  to  fay.  The  whole  Foundation  of  what  hath  been 
before  taught,  refts  upon  This,  that  the  fame  Chriftian  Verity,  or 
Truth,  laid  down  in  Scripture,  obliges  us  to  acknowledge  every 
Perfon  diftindly  confider'd  to  be  God  and  Lord;  and  at  the 
fame  Time  to  rejed  the*  Notion  of  Three  Gods  or  Three  Lords : 
which  being  fo,  all  that  has  been  here  taught,  mufl:  ofCourfebe 
admitted  as  true,  right,  and  juft.  And  now,  having  confider'd 
the  Equality,  and  U'nion  of  the  Three  Sacred  Perfons,  it  may 
next  be  proper  to  confider  xh<dx.Diflincfion,  as  it  is  fet  forth  to 
us  in  Scripture  by  the  feveral  perfonal  Charaders  belonging  to 
the  Father,  Son,  and  Holy-Ghofl. 

20.  The  Father  is  made  of  none,  neither  created  7tor  begotten. 
Were  I  at  liberty  to  make  conjectural  Emendations,  I  wou'd 

here  read,  Vater  a  nullo  efi :  ncque  faftus,  ?iec  <5cc.  The  Father  is 
of  none :  neither  made,  7ior  created,  &c.  And  thus  the  next  Ar- 
ticle i^he  ion  is  of  the  Father  2i\onc)  wou'd  better  anfwer,  and'thc 
whole  w^ould  be  more  elegant.  But  having  met  with  no  Copy'  to 

a  Lazarus  Baifius'j  Cofy,  in  Gcnebrard,  rea<ls  0  -Tntr^e  tf:f  ihy'oc,  i<n.  But  then  it  intirely 
ajr^its  Tfl<)}r9$,  whUh,  as  is  pl.im  from  what  follows  in  tht  Crted,  ought  not  to  be  omitted. 

**  '  countc- 


the    ATUANASIAN     CREED.  141 

countenance  fuch  a  Corredlion ;  I  muft  not  pretend  to  it,  left 
it  fhould  appear  like  correding  the  Amhor.  However,  the  Scn(e 
is  very  plain,  and  obvious.  All  the  Three  Negatives  here  predi- 
cated of  the  Father  amount  to  This  one.  That  He  is  abfblute- 
ly  of  None:  This  is  his  peculiar  Property,  his  diftinguilhing  Cha- 
rader,  to  be  firji  in  order,  and  the  Head  of  every  thing  5  to 
whom  even  the ^c;? and  Holy-Ghoftare  refer'd,  but  diverflyand 
in  different  manner. 

2 1 .  The  Son  is  of  the  Father  alone  5    not  made,  nor  created,  but 
begotten. 

The  Son  is  here  faid  to  be  of  the  Father  alone,  in  contradi- 
ftindion  to  the  Holy-Ghoft,  to  be  named  after,  who  is  not  of 
the  Father  alone,  but  oiEoth,  The  Greeks  that  ftruck  out  the  words, 
and  of  the  Son,  below,  and  left  the  word  alone  here,  were  not 
aware  of  it.  This  Condud  of  Theirs  betray 'd  a  Shortnefs  of 
Thought,  and  at  the  fame  Time  ferved  to  Ihow  that  the  Lor- 
tins  had  not  been  Interpolators  of  the  Creed,  but  that  the  Creeks 
had  been  Omailers.  It  muft  however  be  own'd,  that  the  Greeks 
who  drew  up  that  Form  which  Biihop  Vflser  printed  from 
Junius,  were  wife  enough  to  obferve  how  this  Matter  ftood  j 
and  therefore  ftruck  out  the  word  alone  here,  as  well  as  and 
of  the  Son  below. 

22.  The  Holy-Ghoft  is  of  the  Father^  and  of  the  Son-,  neither 
made,  nor  created,  nor  begotten,  but  proceedings 

The  peculiar  and  diftinguilhing  Charader  of  the  Holy-Ghoft 
is  to  -proceed,  and  to  proceed  both  from  Father  and  Son.  Indeed, 
the  Son  and  Holy-Ghoft  are  Both  of  the  Father,  but  in  a  dift'e- 
re^jt  manner,  to  us  inex|)licablc  5  one  by  the  way  of  Genera- 
tion, the  other  by  Vroceffion,  tho'  the  word  Proceffion,  in  a  lax 
Senfe,  has  been  fomctimes  applied  to  Either.  However,  to 
proceed  from  the  Father  and  the  Son,  or,  as  the  Greeks  will  need- 
lefsly  cavil,  from  the  Father  h"^  the  Son-,  That  is  pccuhar  to  the 
Holy-Ghoft,     The  Greeks  and  Latins  have  had  many,  and  tedious 

Bad  the  Cofiy  run  thus,  utt'  ihvo^  t^ .  ste  //^w  jtojjjti^,  iin  x^Tiiig  gcc.  //  would  have 
Hnfmr'd  my  meaning.  Indeed,  the  firfl  Greek  Copy  in  Lubhcs  Councils,  and  third  m  Mont- 
faucon,  run  in  fuch  a  ix>ay  as  I  fupfofe :  But  thm  I  take  them  to  have  been  patch' d  up  from 
feveral  diftma  Copies,  at  the  pleasure  of  the  Editor,  or  Editen :  Md  mm  of  the  Latin 
Copies  wli  ivarram  fmh  a  Reading. 

Difputes 


141  A    COMMENTARY  on 

Difputcs  about  the  Vrocejjioji.  One  Thing  is  oblGi'vablc,  that 
tho'  the  Antie-fits^  appearj  to  by  Both  Patties,  have  often  faid 
that  the  Holy-Gholl  proceeds  from  the  i^athcTy  without  men- 
tioning the  Son,  yet  They  never  laid  that  He  proceeded  from  the 
Father  alone  j  fo  that  tlie  modern  Greeks  have  certainly  innovated 
in  1  hat  Article,  in  Exprejjion  at  leall,  if  not  in  real  Senfc  and 
Meaning.  As  to  the  LMins,  They  have  This  to  plead,  that 
none  of  the  Antients  ever  condemn'd  their  Doctrine  5  that  Ma,ny 
of  them  have  exprcfsly  aflerted  it  5  that  the  Oriental  Churches 
thcmfclves  rather  condemn  their  taking  upon  them  to  add  any 
thing  to  a  Creed  form'd  in  a  general  Council^  than  the  Boclr'me 
it  felf  i  that  thofe  Greek  Churches  that  charge  their  Dodrine  as 
Herefy,  yet  are  forced  to  admit  much  the  fame  Thing,  only 
in  different  Words  5  and  that  Scripture  it  Iclf  is  plain  that  the 
Holy-Ghoft  proceeds  at  leaft  hj  the  Son,  if  not  from  Him  5 
which  yet  amounts  to  the  fame  Thing. 

I  fhould  here  oblervc,  that  lomc  time  before  the  compiling 
of  This  Creed,  the   ufual  Catholick   way   of  Ipcaking   of  the 
Holy-Ghoft,  was  to  fay,  that  He  was   nee  genitus,  nee  ingenitus, 
neither  beqotten  nor  tmbegotten,  while  This  Creed  by  barely  deny- 
ing Him  to  be  begotten,  feems  to  leave  Room  to  think  that  He 
is  unbcrrotten.  This  railed  a  Scruple  in  the  Minds  of  Some,  here 
in  jE^^^/^W,  concerning  that  part  of  the  Creed,  above  700  years 
aa;o  ;  as   we    learn  from  Abbo  Vloriacenfis  of  That  Time.     For 
GrefTorys  Synodic ca  admitted  here,  as  well  as  this  Creed,  had  the 
very    ExprclTion  concerning  the  Holy-Ghoft,   nee  ingenitus,  nee 
^enitus.     It  might  have  been  eafy  to  end  the  Difpute,  only  by 
diftinguiihing  upon  the  equivocal  meaning  of  the  word  ingeni- 
tus.    It  had  been  taken  from  the  Greek,  kyivy^rvii  which  ftgnihcd 
not  barely  unbegotten,  but  abfolutely  underiwd:  in    This  Senfc 
the  Holy-Ghoft   could    not    be    faid  to   be  ingenitus.    But  if  it 
barely  means  7iot  begotten,  it  may   be  applied   to  Him,  as  it  is 
in  tiie  Creed.     The  whole  Diiliculty  then  arofe  only  from  the 
Scantinefs  of  the  Latin  Tongue,  in  not  aftording  a  fmgle  word 
which  Ihould    fully  exprefs  the  Greek,  kyiw^ro^,  unoriginate.    In- 
oeiiitus  mii^ht  tolerably   do  it  ^  but   the   word  was  more  com- 
monly  taken  in   a   narrower   Conftrudion.     Feter  Abelard  has 
^^  hit 


the  ATHANASIAN   CREED,  145 

hit  off  the  whole  Difficulty  very  clearly  j  whofe  Words  there- 
fore I  have  thrown  into  the  Margin  \ 

2^.  So  there  is  one  Father,  not  Three  F  zithers;  one  Son,  not  Three- 
Sons  5  one  Holy-Ghofi,  not  Three  Holj-Ghojis. 

Whether  This  Paragraph  be  borrowed  from  St.  Auftin,  or 
from  an  elder  Writer  under  the  Name  of  JgnMms,  \  know 
not.  The  Foundation  of  it  was  laid  in  i  Cor.  8.  6.  one  God  the 
Father,  and  one  Lord  JefusChrift-,  to  which  it  was  ufual  to  add, 
after  reciting  it,  and  one  Holy-Ghoft,  to  compleat  the  whole 
number  of  the  divine  Perfons.  The  intent  and  purport  of  the 
words,  in  This  Creed,  is  to  fet  forth  the  Diftincfion  of  the 
Three  Perfons,  and  their  feveral  Offices,  and  Characters:  That 
there  is  one  Father,  and  that  He  alone  is  umriginate,  is  Firft 
Perfon,  is  Head,  &c.  and  neither  t\\c  Son  nor  Holy-Ghofi 
have  any  fhare  in  thcfe  Titles,  or  Characters,  to  make  Three 
TJmriginates,  Three  Heads,  &c.  That  there  is  one  Son,  and  He 
alone  begotten,  and  afterwards  incarnate,  &c.  which  Chara£lers 
and  0-ffices  belong  not  to  the  other  Two,  but  are  dipnoi,  and 
appropriate  to  one.  And  there  is  one  Holy-Ghofi ,  who^Q  Chara&er 
is  to  proceed,  and  whofe  Office  is  to  fan^ify,  which  Charader 
and  Office  are  not  to  be  alcribed,  in  the  fame  Senfc,  to  the 
other  Two ;  for  That  would  be  confounding  the  perional  Cha- 
raders   and  Offices,   and   making  Three  Holy-Ghofi s,    inftead  of 

one. 

24.  And  in  This  Trinity,  none  is  afore  or  after  other-,  none 
is  greater  or  lefs  than  another ;  h'M  the  whole  Three  Perfons  are 
coeternal  together,  and  coequal. 

■^he  Compiler  of  the  Cv^ed  now  returns  to  the  Equality  and 
Unity  of  the  Perfons  5  that  He  may  at  length  fum  up  and  throw 
into  a  ihort  Compafs  what  He  had  faid  upon  the  Trinity,  before 
He  ihould  pafs  on  to  the  other  great  Article,  The  Incarnation. 

a  Solum  itaqiie  Patrem  ingen'itum  dicimus,  hoc  eft,  a  feipfo  non  ab  alio:  unde  Atigu- 
Jl'iHUs  adveiius  Feliciannm  AriaiKimj   Patrem ingenttum  clico,quia  non  pocsjjit  ab  altera.  • 

Aliud  itaque  dicere  ell  Patrem  ingenitum,  aliud  non  genitum f  piritus  vero  landus 

jpfe  quoquc  eH  non  genii i-.! ■- Nee  taincn  ideo   eft  inger.itus,  cum   ipfe  ab  alio  ht, 

tam  a  Patre  Icilicet  quam  a  Filio  procedens.  Solus  itaque  Pater  tngenitits  d\cnur,  ficiit- 
folus  Filius  genitur.  Spiritus  vero  frmdus  ncc  genitus  eft,  nee  ifigenilm,  fed,  ut  didlum  eft, 
non  genifHi.    ^iaeUrii.  introd.  ad  Thcolog.  1.  s.  ?■  ySj. 

When-. 


144  ^    COMMENTART  on 

When  it  is  faid,  ?ione  is  afore  or  after  others  we  are  not  to  un- 
derftand  it  of  Ordcr-^  for  the  Father  is  Firft^  the  Son  Secotid^  and 
the  Holy-Ghoil  T^md  in  Order.  Neither  arc  we  to  undeiftaud 
it  of  office  J  for  the  Father  is  jupren-ie  in  Oiftce,  while  the  Son 
and  Holy-Ghoft  condefcend  to  inferior  Offices.  But  we  are  to 
underfland  it,  as  the  Creed  it  felf  explains  it,  of  Duration^  and 
of  Dignity  5  in  which  refpecl,  none  is  afore  or  after,  none  greater 
or  lejs,  but  the  whole  Three  Perjom  coeternal,  and  coequal. 

2^.  So  that  in  all  Things,  as  is  afore jaid,  the  Unity  in  Trinity y 
a'nd  the  Trinity  iji  Unity  is  to  be  -ivor^npped. 

In  all  Things,  {per  omnia,)  as  is  afore  faid.  One  of  the  Greek 
Copies  tacks  thefe  words  to  the  former  Article,  making  them 
run  thus  5  coequal  in  all  Things,  as  afore  faid.  Another  Greek 
Copy  reads  them  thus,  coequal  in  all  Things:  fo  that  in  all 
Thmgs,  as  is  now  faid,  &c.  Both  interpret  the  all  Things  of 
the  Coequality  in  all  Things.  And  indeed  Venantius  Fortuna- 
tus  in  his  Comment,  long  before,  feems  to  have  underflood, 
per  omnia,  in  the  lame  way,  to  fignify  that  the  Son  is  what 
the  Father  is,  in  all  effential,  or  fubfantial  Perfections.  And 
it  is  favoured  both  by  what  goes  before  and  after :  For  from 
fpeaking  of  the  Coeternity  and  Coequality,  the  Author  proceeds 
to  fay,  fo  that  in  all  Things,  as  aforelaid,  the  Unity  in  Trinity, 
a?id  the  Trinity  i'n  Unity  ts  to  be  ivor^np'd-,  namely,  on  account  of 
their  perfect  Coeternity,  and  Coequality:  to  w^hich  He  fubjoins, 
He  therefore  that  -ivill  he  faved,  6<.c.  Wherefore  I  inchnc  to 
the  moderate  Opinion  of  Thofe  who  think  that  the  Author 
here  does  not  lay  the  ftrefs  upon  every  little  nicety  of  Ex- 
plication before  given,  but  upon  the  main  Dodrine,  of  a  Coe- 
qual and  Coeternal  Trinity  ^ 

a  Le  Quien'i  tngenuouu  and  hand  [cm  RcfleBion,  upon  the  ConduH  of  Tope  Gregory  the 
IXth's  Legates,  may  deferve  a  recital  here. 

QuanH]uam  oon  pofTiim  quin  in:Tcnufc  fatcar  Nuncios  Apoflolicos  confultius  fafturos 
fuifle,  fi  ab  ojufmodi  Scntcntia  pronimtianda  fibi  tcmperafl'ent;  ^ui  credit  Spiritum  San^ 
cittm  nen  procedcre  ex  Filio,  in  via  perditionis  ejl:  Tunc  qiiirps  Tempoiis  Ecclcfia  Catho- 
lica  in  nulla  Synodo  Gcncrali  hoc  dc  Capitc  judicium  dcfiniiorium  tulerat.  Panopl.  contr. 
Schifm.  Grxcor.  p.  360. 

Wickliff'i  Comment  on  this  Paragraph,  put  into  modern  Engiifli,  will  not  appear  contem- 
ptible:  It  is  thus: 

"  And  Jh  -ae  conclude  here,  as  it  is  before  faid,  that  there  is  both  an  Unity  <>/ Godhead. 

,     z6.  He 


the   ATHANASIAK    CREED.  145 

26.  He  therefore  that  -will  be  favedj  mufl  thus  think  of  the 
Trinity. 

Thus,  asconfifting  ofThreePerfons,  fof/^^r;^/^/ and^<?(?^/^^/,  and 
all  one  God-^  diflincl  enough  to  be  Three ^  united  enough  to  be  One  5 
diftind  without  Divilion,  united  without  Confufion. 

27.  Furthermore^  it  is  necejpiry  to  everlafing  Salvation,  that  He 
alfo  believe  rightly  *  the  Incarnation  of  our  Lord  Jefus  Chrifi. 

Much  depends  upon  our  having  true  and  juft  Sentiments  of 
x\\z  Incarnation,  in  which  the  whole  Oeconomy  of  our  Salva- 
tion is  nearly  concern'd.  To  corrupt  and  deprave  This  Doctrine, 
is  to  defeat  and  fruftrate,  in  a  great  meafure,  the  Gofpel  of 
Chrift  which  bringeth  Salvation :  Wherefore  it  is  of  great  Mo- 
ment, of  everlafting  Concernment  to  us,  not  to  be  guilty  of 
doing  it  our  felves,  nor  to  take  part  with  Thofe  that  do. 

28.  Tor,  the  right  Faith  ts,  that  we  believe  and  confefs,  that 
our  Lord  Jefus  Chrift,  the  Son  of  God,  is  God  and  Man. 

There  have  been  Hereticks  who  would  not  allow  that  our 
Saviour  Chrift  was  Man,  but  in  fuch  a  Senfc  as  a  Shadow,  or 
aPidure  of  a  Man,  may  be  called  a  Man:  And  there  have  been 
others  who  would  not  allow  that  Chrift  is  God,  but  in  fuch  a 
Senfe  as  any  Creature  whatever  might  be  called,  or  may  be 
made  a  God.  But  all  good  Chriftians  have  ever  abhorr'd  thofe 
vile  Tenets,  and  conformably  to  Scripture,  rightly  and  juftly 
interpreted,  have  believed  and  confefs'd  that  Chrift  is  both 
really  God,  and  really  Man,  one  God-man. 

29.  God^  of  the  Stibflance  of  the  Father  begotten  before  the 
Worlds  5  and  Man,  of  the  Subflance  of  his  Mother,  born  in  the  World. 
V  We  are  forced  to  bcvthus  particular,  and  exprellive,  in  the 

wording  of  this  Article,  becaufe  of  the  many  Wiles,  Equivo- 
cations, and  Diiguifes  of  Thofe,  who  endeavor  to  corrupt  the 
Faith.  The  Arians  make  of  Chrift  a  created  Go^,  and  call  Him 
God  on  account   only  of  his  Ojfce,  and  not  of  his  Nature,  or 

and  a  Trinity  o/Perfonsi  ««</  that  the  Trinity  in  This  Unity  is  to  be  worfh'pp'd  ahve 
"  all  other  things:  ^nd  whol'oevcr  will  be  faved  mufl:  th.is  thi^k  ot  the  Trii.ityj  if  not 
*'  thus  expliciiely  (or  in  every  puriicular)  yet  thus  in  the  general,  or  im[>l:citely. 

a  '0^(Z<;  vi^iurvi.  So  Bryling'j  Greek  Copy.  The  Latin  Copies  have,  Fideliter  credat.  Some 
Greek  Copies  read  m-^Ji,  or  i^i^cCuc,  iho'  Two,  befides  Bryling'i,  have  alfo  if%i. 

T  unchange- 


J4<2?  ^  COMMENT  ART  on 

unchangeable  Siibftancc.  For  this  rcafon,  wc  arc  obliged  to 
be  particular  in  exprclling  his  Suljla-ace,  as  being  not  fra>il^ 
mutable,  ferifmng,  as  the  Subflancc  of  Creatures  is,  but  eternal 
and  unchangeable,  and  all  one  with  the  P.ither's.  On  the  other 
Hand,  the  ApoUinarium  and  other  Hereticks  have  pretended,  either 
that  Chrilt  liad  no  Human  Body  at  all,  or  that  He  brought  it 
M  irh  Him  from  Heaven,  and  took  it  not  of  the  Virgin-Mo- 
ther :  We  are  therefore  forced  to  be  particular  in  this  Profef- 
fion,  that  He  was  Man  of  the  Suhfimce of  his  Mother :  which,  tho* 
it  be  not  taught  in  exprefs  words,  yet  is  very  plainly  the  Scnic 
and  Meaning  of  Holy  Scripture  on  this  Article  j  and  was  ne- 
ver queftion'd  till,  conceited  Men  came  to  pervert  the  true 
Doftrinc  of  Sacred  Writ,  by  fallc  Gloffes  and  Comments  of 
their  own. 

3  o.  Perfect  God^  and  per  feci  Man  of  a,  reafouahle  Sotd,  and  Hu- 
man Fiefh  fubjifting. 

Here  again,  the  Perverfenefs  of  Hereticks  has  made  it  necef- 
fary  to  guard  the  Faith  by  ftrong  and  exprelTive  Words  that 
cannot  eafily  be  eluded.  Chrift  is  perfeci  Cod,  not  fucii  a  Tioml- 
?i(i>l  imperfed  God  as  Ariaits,  and  Phot'mians  pretend.  He  is 
moreover  perfeci  Aian,  which  it  is  nccellary  to  infill:  upon 
againrt  the  Apolli-nartans,  who  pretended  that  He  had  a  Human 
Body  only  without  any  R'ationaL  Soul ;  imagining  the  Logos  to 
have  fupplied  the  Place  of  the  rational,  or  reajonahle  Soul : 
whereas  in  reality  He  had  both  a  Soul  and  Body,  as  all  Men  have, 
and  was  therefore  perfeci  Aiait. 

3 1.  Equal  to  the  Father,  as  touching  his  Godhead 't  and  Inferior 
to  the  Father,  as  touching  his  Manhood. 

Which  needs  no  Comment. 

32.  who  altho  He  be  God  and  Man,  yet  He  is.  not  Two,  but  one 
chrift. 

This  is  faid,  to  guard  againO:  Calumny  and  Mif-conftruLlion. 
For,  bccaul'(;  the  Church  allertcd  Tvo  Natures  in  Chrill,  where- 
by He  is  both  perfeci  God,  and  perfect  A4an,  the  Apollinarians, 
having  an  Hypothelis  of  their  own  to  fcrvc,  pretended  that 
This  was  making  'Tvo  chrift s,  ;{ Divine  chrift,  as  to  one  Nature, 
and  a  Huri^an  chrift  in  the  other :  Which  was  a  vain  Thought, 

fuice 


the   ATHAKASIAN   CREED.  147 

fince  Both  the  Natures  join'd  in  the  one  God-m;in^  make  ftiil 
but  one  Chrift,  both  God  and  Man. 

33.  O^ie,  not  by  Con'verf.cn  of  the  Codhe^.d  into  Flefh,  but  by 
taking  of  the  Manhood  into  Cod. 

The  Apollinarian  way  of  making  one  chrifi  by  confounding 
the  two  Natures  in  one,  and  by  fubjcding  the  Godhead  to 
change,  is  here  condemn'd.  There  is  no  need  of  running  thefe 
injudicious,  and  abfurd  Lengths,  for  folving  the  Difficulty  how 
the  two  Natures  make  o/ie  Chrijl :  He  did  not  change  his  divine 
Nature,  or  convert  it  into  Flefhy  tiio'  He  be  faid  to  have  been 
made  F/efh  5  He  took  Flefh  upon  Him,  He  alllimed  human  Na- 
ture, took  Man  into  an  Union  with  God,  and  thus  was  He 
One  chrifi. 

34.  One  altogether^  not  by  Confufion  of  Subflance,  but  by  Unity 
of  Perfon. 

We  are  thus  forc'd  to  diftinguilh,  with  the  utmoft  Nicety 
and  Accuracy,  to  obviate  the  Cavils,  and  Pretences  of  Hereticks. 
Chrift  then  is  one  altogether,  intirely  one,  tho'  his  two  Natures 
remain  diflinB.  He  is  not  one  by  cmfounding,  or  mingling  two 
Natures  or  Subftances,  into  one  Nature  or  Subftancej  (as  the 
Apollinarians  pretended)  but  by  uniting  them  Both  in  one  Perfon  5 
one  I,  one  He,  one  Chrift,  as  Scripture  every  where  reprefents. 

3  5 .  For,  as  the  reafonable  Soul  and  Flefo  is  one  Man  j  fo  Cod 
and  Man  is  one  ChriJl. 

That  is  to  fay,  There  are  two  very  diftind,  and  different 
Subftances  in  Man,  a  Body  and  a  Soul;  one  material,  the  other 
immaterial,  one  mortal,  the  other  immortal  -■>  and  Both  thefe 
^ubftances,  neverthelefs,^make  up  but  one  Man.  Not  by  con- 
founding or  mingling  thofe  two  different  Subftances  f  for  they  are 
intirely  diflin6i,  and  differenty  and  will  ever  remain  fo)  but  by 
uniting  them  in  one  Perfon.  Even  fo,  may  the  Two  dif inct 
Natures  Divine  and  Human  in  Chrift,  make  one  Perfon-,  And 
This  is  really  and  truly  the  Cafe  in  Fad. 

3  6.  who  fujfered  for  our  Sahation,  defended  into  Hell,  rofe 
again  the  third  day  from  the  Bead, 

The  Author  having  finifh'd  his  Explication  of  the  great  Ar- 
ticle of  God  incarnate ,    now  goes   on    to    other   Parts  of  the 

T  2  Creed, 


148  A  COMMENTARY  on 

Creed,  fuch  as  were  commonly  infcrtcd  in  the  Creeds  before. 
The  Article  of  The  Dejcmt  into  Hell  had  not  indeed,  at  This 
Time,  come  into  the  ifow/j;^,  other wi lb  called  the  ^/>o/?iW  Creed : 
But  it  had  been  infcrted  in  the  Creed  of  Ac^uilem,  and  had  been 
all  along  the  (landing  Dodrine  of  the  Church.  I  fhall  leave  ir, 
as  our  Church  has  left  it,  without  any  particular  Interpretation^ 
referring  the  Reader  to  Thofe  who  have  commented  on  the 
Apofiles  Creed,  and  particularly  to  the  much  admired  Author 
of  The  H'tfiory  of  it,  who  hath  exhaufted  the  Subject. 

37.  He  ajcended  into  Hedven,  He  fitteth  on  the  right  Hand  of 
the  Father  J  Cod  Almighty,  from  whence  He  /ball  come  to  jud^e  the 
^luick  a,nd  the  Bead. 

Thefe  are  all  fo  many  Articles  of  the  Roman  Creed,  and 
probably  taken  from  it :  excepting  only,  that  the  words,  Cod 
Almighty  J  appear  not  in  the  moft  antient  Manufcripts ;  and,  very 
probably,  were  not  originally  in  This  Creed,  any  more  than  in 
the  antient  Roman. 

38.  At  -ivhofe  Coming,  all  Men  Jhall  rife  again  -with  their  Bodies, 
and  fhall  give  account  for  their  own  Works. 

Here  are  Two  very  expreflive  Phrafes,  All  Men,  All  that  ha\'e 
died,  or  fhall  die,  to  obviate  the  falfe  Opinion  of  a  partial  Re- 
furreclion ;  and  with  their  Bodies  to  obviate  the  Notion  of  thofe, 
who  either  thought  that  the  Soul  only  fhould  continue  for  ever, 
while  the  Body  Ihould  be  left  to  perilli,  or  that  the  Refur- 
reciion-Body  Ihould  be  quite  of  another  Matter,  Form,  or  Kind, 
than  what  our  Bodies  are  here.  I  have  hinted  in  my  Lati?i 
Notes  above,  that  fome  Words  are  wanting  in  the  Ambrofian 
Manufcript5  and  I  may  here  obferve  farther,  that  in  the  words 
of  the  Creed,  as  they  commonly  run,  there  is  not  all  the  Ac- 
curacy that  might  have  been :  For  All  Men  Ihall  not  rife,  but 
only  All  that  die.  However,  it  fcems  that  about  that  Time, 
cliere  was  fome  Variety  of  Sentiments  in  refped:  of  That  Arti- 
cle, as  we  may  learn  from  Gmnadius  *  5  which   was   owing  to 

a  Omnium  f^ominum  crit  Rerurreftio:  Si  omnium  crir,  ergo  omncs  moriuntur, 
ut  mors  ab  Ada.m  ducta  omnibus  fihis  ejus  dominetur,  &  nuncat  iliud  privilegium  in 
Domino,  quod  dc  eo  fpccialirur  dicitur:  Kon  ditbii  San^nm  tunm  luiere  Cpnuptiontm., 
u-..  .  — Hanc  rationem  raaxim3  patrum  turba  tradcntc  furcepiraus.    Vcrum  quia  funt  & 

.    the 


the  ATHANASIAN    CREED.  14^ 

the  different  Reading  of  i.  Cor.  15.  51.  f^oni  wlience,  pro- 
bably, arolc  fome  Variation  in  the  Copies  of  this  Creed.  See 
Pearjbfi    on   the  Apojiles,  Creed.     Artie.  7. 

39.  And  They  that  have  done  Good  ^ all  go  into  Life  everlajl-- 
ing,  and  They  that  have  done  Evil  into  everUfling  Tire. 

This  is  the  expreis  Dodrine  of  Scripture,  and  appears  almoft 
in  the  fame  Words,  Joh.s-^^-  MMt.z<>,.\6.  to  fay  nothing 
of  many  other  Texts  to  the  fame  Effed.  Yet  This  Article,  or 
rather  thefe  two  Articles  had  not  gain'd  Admittance  into  the 
Apofiles  Creed  fo  early  as  the  IVth  Century,  the  latter  of  'em 
not  at  4II.  But,  I  fuppoie,  the  Opinion  faid  to  have  been  flatted 
by  Origenj  that  wicked  Men  and  even  Devils,  after  a  certain. 
Revolution,  Ihould  have  their  Releafe  and  Reftoration,  might 
make  it  the  more  neceilary,  or  convenient  at  leaft,  to  infert 
thefe  Articles  in  the  Creeds,  and  to  exprefs  the  Punifhment  of 
the  damn'd  by  the  words  eternal  Tire:  For  the  Origenifisy  at 
That  Time,  denied  both  the  Eternity  of  the  Tire,  and  alfo  its 
Reality,  as  appears  from  Orofius  in  St.  Aujlin^. 

40.  This  is  the  Catholick  Taithj  which  except  a  Alan  believe 
faithfully^ J  He   cannot  be  faved. 

This  is  to  be  underftood,  like  all  other  fuch  general  Pro^ 
politions,  with  proper  Referves,  and  qualifying  Conftrudions, 
As  for  Inftance,  if  after  laying  down  a  Syftem  of  Chriftian 
Morality,  it  be  faid,  This  is  the  chriflian  PraBice,  which  excep 
a  Man  faithfully  ohferve  and  follow.  He  cannot  be  faved,  it 
would  be  no  more   than   right,  and  juft  thus  to   fay  :  But  no 

Aliitseque  Catholic!  &  eruditi  viri,  qui  credunt,  anima  in  Corpore  manente,  miitandos  ad 
incorruptionem  8c  immortalitatem  Eos' qui  in  Adventii  Domini  njtvt  inveniendi  funt,  8c 
Hoc  eis  reputari  pro  refurrecJione  ex  mortuis,  quod  niortalitatem  immutatione  deponant, 
non  morte;  quolibet  quis  adquiefcat  modo,  non  eft  Hsreticus,  niii  ex  contentione  Hxis-  ■ 
ticus  fiat.     Sufficit   enim  in   Ecclefiae  Lege,  Carnis  Refurredlionem  credere   futuram  dc  - 
morte.  Gennad.  Ecclef.  Dogm.  c.  7. 

a  Ignem  fane  aeternum,  quo  peccatores  puniantur,  neque  efle  Ignem  xtrum,  ne]ue  <«• 
ternum  prsdicaverunt ,  dicentes  diftum  efle  ignem  proprias  Confcientix  punitionem,  <• 
ternum  autem,  juxta  etymologiam  Grsecam,  non  efle  perpetHum,  8cc.  Epift.  O^ofiiad  Aaguft; 
inter  ^ug.  op.  Tom,  8.  p.  607. 

b  n«s»?  THTivryf.  So  Brylin:;'^  Copy,  vh'ich  our  Tranjlators  followed. 

The  Latin    Copies  huve,  fideliter,  firmiterque  crediderit.    And  the  other  Greek.  Copta., 


150  ihe  Reafovahleyicfs  of  Retainhig 

one  could  be  fuppofed  hereby  to  cxcIiiJc  any  fuch  merciful 
Abatements,  or  Allowances,  as  fhall  be  made  for  Men's  par- 
ticular Circumdanccs,  Wcakne'ics,  Frailties,  Ignorance,  Inabi- 
lity, or  the  Like  J  or  for  x\\zx.  fmcere  Inteniion:',  and  honefi 
defires  of  knowing,  and  doing  the  whole  will  of  God;  accom- 
panied with  a  generd  Repentance  of  their  Stns^  and  a  firm  Re- 
liance upon  God's  Mercy,  through  the  fole  Merits  of  Chrift 
jefus.  There  can  be  no  doubt,  however,  but  that  Men  are 
accountable  for  their  Fmth,  as  well  as  for  their  Vr;i6lic: :  And 
efpecially  if  They  take  upon  them  to  inftrud  and  dired 
others,  trufting  to  their  own  Strength  and  Parts,  againft  the 
united  Judgment  and  Verdid  of  -whole  churches  aatient  and 
modern. 

CHAP.     X(. 

The  Church  of  England  vindicated,  both  as   to    the   Re^ 
ceivingy  and  Retaining  the  Athanafian  Creed. 

THERE  would  be  no  Occafion  for  this  Chapter,  had  not 
a  late  Author'  of  Name  and  Charader,  out  of  his  a- 
bundant  Zeal  to  promote  Ari^nifm ,  taken  upon  Him  to 
difparage  this  excellent  Form  of  Faith ;  nay  and  to  apply, 
with  fome  earneftnefs,  to  The  Governors  of  our  Church,  to  get 
it  laid  afide.  He  thinks,  it  m(iy  -well  deferve  the  mofi  ferious 
and  deliberate  Confident  ion  of  the  Governors  of  the  Church,  whe- 
ther it  would  not  be  more  advantaiious  to  the  true  interef  of  the 
Chrifli(m  Religion,  to  retain  o?ily  thofe  more  indifputable  Forms  ""y 
that  is,  to  have  This  wholly  taken  away,  or  at  Icafl:  not  impofed 
in  our  Articles,  or  Liturgy.  Then  He  fubjoins  his  Reajons: 
Which  becaufe  They  may  be  prefumed  to  be  the  clofeft,  and 
ftrongcll:  that  can  be  offered  on  That  Side,  and  becaufe  They 
have  hitherto  flood  without  any  particular  Confutation  on  one 
Hand,  or  Retradation  on  the  other,  1  (hall  here  take  upon  me 
to  anfwer  them,  as  briefly  as  may  be. 

a  CUxk^i   Scrip.  Dolir,  Edit.  ift.  p.  446,  447. 

.   I.  The 


the  ArHAHASIAK    CREED.  iji 

Objection.   I. 

The  firft  is,  that  This  Creed  is  confejjed  not  to  be  Athana- 
fiusV,  hut  the  Compofition  of  fi>n  uncertain  ohfcure  Author,,  written  in 
one  of  the  d^kefi  and  mofl  ignorant  Ages  of  the  Church ;  having 
never  appear' d  till  about  the  Tear  Soo,  nor  been  received  in  the 
church  till  jo  very  late  as  about  the  Tear   looo. 

Answ.  As  to  the  falfe  Fa^s  contain'd  in  This  Article,  I  need 
only  refer  to  the  preceding  Sheets.  As  to  the  Creed  being 
none  oi  Athanafiuss,  which  is  certainly  true,  it  is  to  be  con- 
fider'd,  that  our  Church  receives  it  not  upon  the  Authority  of 
its  Compiler,  nor  determines  any  thing  about  its  Age,  or  Au- 
thor :  But  We  receive  it  becaufe  the  Truth  of  the  Doctrines 
contained  in  it,  may  be  proved  by  mofl  certmn  warrants  of  Holy- 
Scripture  j  as  is  exprefsly  faid  in  our  Vlllth  Article.  I  may  add,, 
that  the  early  and  general  Reception  of  this  Creed  by  Greeks 
and  Latins,  by  all  the  Weflern  Churches,  not  only  before,  but 
fince  the  Reformation^  muft  needs  give  it  a  much  greater  Autho- 
rity and  Weight  than  the  fmgle  Name  of  Athajtafius  could  do, 
were  it  ever  fo  juftly  to  be  let  to  it.  Athanafius  has  left  fome 
Creeds  and  Confeilions,  undoubtedly  his,  which  yet  never 
have  obtain'd  the  Efteem  and  Reputation  that  This  hath  done : 
Becaufe  none  of  them  are  really  of  the  fame  intrinfick  Value, 
nor  capable  of  doing  the  like  Service  in  the  Chriftian  Church- 
es. The  ufe  of  it  is,  to  be  a  {landing  Fence  and  Prefer- 
vative  againft  the  wiles  and  equivocations  of  mod  kinds  of 
Hereticks.  This  was  well  underftood  by  Luther,  when  He 
calh:d  it,  A  Bulwark  to  thh  Apoflles  Creed ; ""  much  to  the  fame 
purpofe  with  what  has  been  above  cited  from  Ludclphus  SaxoJ° 
And  it  was  this  and  the  like  Confiderations  that  have  all  along 

a  Athanafii  fcilicet  Symbohm  eft  paulo  prolixius,  &  ad  confutandos  ^rhnos  Hsreticos, 

aliquantouberius  declarar,  &  illuftrat  Articulum  alterum  de  Dlvinitare  Chnfti  }efu  ^ =■ 

cftque  Hoc  vel'JtPropugnaculuip  primi  illius  ^f^ojiolict  Syrnboli.  Luther,  dc  Trib.  Symbo!, 
Oper.  Tom.  Vll.  p.  i  58. 

b  Thus  alo  Alexander  of  Hales,    i (o  ysars  before  Ludclphus. 

Caufa  muitiplicationis  5)'w^o/^r»w  fuit  triplex;  Injiruciio  Fule'i.veritatis  explanntio,  error'ty, 

txchifio.4 Rrroris  cxci'ufio,  propter  Hserefes  multiplices  pulliilantes;  caufa  fiiit  Sym' 

boll  Athm.%fit,(^\iO'i  cautnur  in  Pr  ma.  ^lexmd.  Ahnf.   Part.  3.  Q.  69.1Me.1-.br.  2.  p-.  5"4I- 
johan.  Januenfis  i»  /.^jj  Catlic'.icon;  {A>i.   ii'o6)  under  Syn\ho\nn-i,f'^y!  (he  fume  Thing. 

made. 


I  j  1  The  Reafonahlenefs  of  Reta'mwg 

made    it  to  be  of  fuch  high  Elkcm    among    all  the  Reformed 
churches,  from  the  Days  of  their  great  Leader. 

Object.  II. 

The  fccond  reafon  afllgn'd  for  laying  this  Form  afidc,  is,  that  it 
is  fo  ivorded-,  as  that  many  of  the  common  People  cannot  hut  he 
too  apt  to  widerftand  it  irt  a  Senfe  farvouring  either  Sabellianifm, 
or  Tritheilm. 

A  N  s  w.  This  Objection  is  not  particularly  level'd  againft  This 
Creed,  but  againft  all  Creeds  containing  the  Dodrineof  a  Coeter- 
nal  Trinity  irt  Unity  :  It  is  therefore  an  Objedion  rather  againft  the 
Taith  of  the  Church,  (which  thofe  Gentlemen  endeavor  conftant- 
ly  to  run  down,  under  the  notion  of  SahelUanijm,  or  Tritheifm) 
than  againft  This  particular  Form  of  Exprelling  it. 

I  may  further  add,  that  the  Common-People  will  be  in  no  danger 
of  running  cither  into  SaheUiamfm,  or  Tritheifm,  if  They  at- 
tend to  the  Creed  it  felf  ('which  fully  obviates  and  confutes  Both 
thofe  Herefies^  inftead  of  liftening  to  Thofe  who  firft  induftri- 
oufly  labour  to  deceive  them  into  a  falfe  Conftrudion  of  the 
Creed,  and  then  complain  of  the  Common- People's  being  too  apt 
to  mif  undcrftand  it.  This  is  not  ingenuous,  nor  upright  deal- 
ing with  the  Common  People. 

Object.    III. 

A  Third  reafon  is,  that  there  are  in  This  Creed  many  Phrafes, 

■which may  feem  to  give  Unbelievers   a  needle fs  Advantage 

of  oh  Reeling  aq^ainfl  Religion  •,  a'nd  among  Believers  themfelves,  can- 
not hut  to  the  Vulgar  have  too  much  the  appearance  of  Contra- 
diciions :  And  fometimes  (  efpecially  the  Damnatory  Claufes)  have 
given  offence  to  the  pioufefl  and  mofl  learned  Men ,  infomuch  as 
to  have  been  the  principal  Reafo-n  of  Mr.  Chillingworth'i  refufing 
to  fuhfcrihe  the   3  9  Articles. 

A  NSW.*  As  to  Unhelievers,  :indthch  OhjecJionSy  the  Church  has 
been  always  able,  and  willing  to  anfwer  them  ;  forry  at  the  fame 
time  to  find,  that  Any,  who  call  thcmfelvcs  c/;r//?//i/;ii  fhouldjoin 
with  the  Unhel/evers'm  the  fame  trifling  Objcclions,  thereby  giving 
the  Unbelievers  a  very  ncedlefs  Advantage,  and  the  moft  perni- 
cious 


the   ATHANASIAK    CREED,  155 

cious  Encouragement.  As  to  vulgar  Believers,  they  fufpect  no 
Contraai^ionSy  till  Some,  who  think  themtelves  above  the  Vt^lgm^ 
labour  to  create  fuch  a  Sulpicion  in  Them.  Leave  the  Vdgw 
to  their  better  Guides,  and  their  true  Orthodox  Paftors,  with- 
out endeavouring  to  corrupt  or  feduce  them ;  and  then  all  will 
be  fafe,  and  eafy. 

As  to  Mr.  Chillingworth,  He  had  for  a  while, 'tis  owned,  fomc 
Scruples  upon  Him,  about  the  Fourth  Conimandment  as  appertain- 
ing to  Chrijlians,  and  about  the  Damnatory  Claufcs  in  the  Athana- 
fian  Creed ;  and  therefore  refufed  to  fuhfcribe  for  a  Time.  This 
was  in  the  year  1635.  But  within  Three  years  after,  upon  more 
mature  Confideration,  He  happily  got  over  his  Difficulties,  and 
fubfcribedj  July  the  20th,  in  the  year  1638  ;  as  ftands  upon  re- 
cord in  the  office  of  SaruMj  where  He  was  inftituted  Chancellor 
of  the  Church.  * 

Object.  IV. 

A  Fourth  reafon  offered,  not  for  laying  a/ide  this  Creed, 
I  fuppofe,  but  for  the  Governors  taking  it  into  confideration, 
is,  that  the  Preface  to  the  Book  of  Common-Prayer  declares  that  par- 
ticular Forms  of  Divine-Worfhip,  and  Rites  and  Ceremonies  appointed 
to  be  ufed  therein,  being  Things  in  their  oivn  Nature  indifferent  and 
alterable  J  may,  upon  the  various  exigency  of  Times  and  OccaJionSy 
be  changed  or  alter'd. 

Answ.  No  doubt  but  the  Church  may,  if  it  be  thought  proper 
or  expedient,  throw  out  all  the  Creeds  out  of  her  daily  Service, 
or  Articles,  and  retain  one^  only  in  the  Office  of  Baptifm ,  as 
formerly.  But,  I  fuppofe,  the  Aufliors  of  the  Preface  to  the 
Book  of  Common-Prayer,  had  no  thought  of  excluding  any  of  the 
three  Creeds  among  their  alterable  Forms  of  worlhip,  or  Rites 
and  Ceremonies  :  Nor  will  the  revival  of  Arianifm  be  ever  look'd 
upon  as  one  of  thofe  Exigencies  of  Times  that  iliall  make  it  expedient 

a  Ego  Gulielraus  Chillingworth.Clericus.in  Artibus  Magifter,  ad  Cancellariatum  Ecc'ie- 
•  fi3e  Cathedralis  Beatse  iMaris  Sarnm,  una  cum  Pribenda  de  Brinworth,  alias  Bricklef- 
worth,  in  Comitatu  Northampton  Petriburgenfis  Dicecefeos  in  eadem  Ecclefia  fundata, 
&  eidcm  Cancdiariatui  annexa,  admittendus  &  inftituendus,  omnibus  hifce  Articulis,  8c 
fingulis  in  eifdem  contentis  volens  &  ex  animo  fubrcribo,&  confenfum  meuai  cifdem  prs- 
bcp,  vicefimo  die  Julii.  1638.  GulielmHs  Chillingvcrth, 

V  to 


15  4  'The  Reafonahlenefs   of  Retaining 

to  part  with  our  Creeds  5  but,  a  rcafon  rather  for  retaining  them 
the  more  firmly,  or  even  for  taking  them  in  again,  had  any  of 
them  ever  been  unhappily  thrown  out. 

Object.    V. 

A  furher  reafon  pleaded,  is,  that  Scripture  alone  is  fujficient -^ 
that  the  Vrirnitive  Chunh  was  very  cautious  about  multiplying  Creeds  \ 
that  the  Council  of  Ephefus  for  bad ^  under  the  penalty  of  an  Anor- 
thema,  any  other  Creed  after  That  of  hlicc  to  be  propofed^  or  received 
in  the  church. 

A  N  s  w.  The  whole  deilgn  and  end  of  Creeds  is  to  prefervc  the 
Ride  ofFaithj  as  contain'd  in  the  holy  Scriptures^  and  not  in  the 
falfe  gloflcs,  and  corrupt  Inventions  of  Men.  And  when  En- 
deavors are  ufed  to  poifon  thofe  Fountains  of  Truth,  by  ill  Com- 
mentSj  and  forc'd  Conftrudions  •■,  Prefervatives  muft  be  thought 
on  to  keep  the  Fountain  pure^  and  the  Faith  found  and  whole. 

As  to  the  Vrirnitive  Churches,  their  conftant  way  was  to  in- 
large  their  Creeds  in  proportion  to  the  Growth  of  Herefies  j  that 
fo  every  Corruption  ariiing  to  the  Faith  of  Chriji.^  might  ha\'e  an 
immediate  Remedy  :  without  which  prudent  and  wife  Caution, 
The  Faith  would  have  been  loll,  in  a  little  Time,  through  the 
Wiles  and  Artifices  of  fubtle,  intriguing  Men. 

The  Council  of  Ephefus  made  no  order  againft  new  Creeds,  that 
is,  Creeds  flill  more  and  more  inlarged,  if  there  Ihould  be  occa- 
sion, but  againft  a  new  Faith  {eTi^v  tA^v)  a  Faith  dtferent  from 
and  repugnant  to  that  of  Nice,  fuch  as  was  offer'd  by  the  Ne- 
fiorians  in  That  Council.  This  is  the  literal  conftrudion,  and 
real  intended  \\\z'\\\\\\^i^  of  That  Decree  of  the  Fphefine  Council:* 
Tho'  had  They  intended  it  againft  the  receiving  any  other  Form 
but  the  Nicene  j  all  that  follows  from  it  is,  that  They  thought 
no  more  neceft'ary  at  77:7^/  Time^  or  that  Defitiitions  in  Councils 
(as  in  the*  Council  of  Chalcedon  afterwards )  or  Condemnation  of 
Heretical  Tenets  might  fufiice  ,  leaving  the  Baptifmal  Creed 
(all  Creeds  were  fuch  at  That  Tmic)  juft  as  was  before.     How- 

a  W^.'ittfhiin.  de  ^Itimura  (i.e.  Le  ^lien)  Panopliam  coQtra  Schifra.  Gric  p.  ajo, 
I'iS.  In  Diflcrtat.  DaiTjafcen,  p.  I4>  qc.    ■ 

•"  ever 


the   ATUAUASIAN    CREED.  155 

ever,  the  Pradice  of  the  Church  afterwards,  in  multiplying  Creeds 
as  need  required,  at  the  fame  Time  that  They  acknowledg'd  the 
Ephefine  Council,  fhows  fully  how  they  underftood  it.  Nay  the 
conltant  Reception  of  the  Conjlmttimpolit^n  Creed  (which  is 
the  Nicene  interpolated,  and  yet  was  never  underftood  to  be  ex- 
cluded by  the  Ephefme  Canonj  fhews  plainly  the  Senfe  of  the 
Synod  in  That  matter.  It  is  to  be  noted,  that  the  Ephefme 
Council,  by  Nicene  Creed,  meant  the  Nicene  ftridly  fo  called,* 
and  which  had  already  been  interpolated  by  the  Cmfiantimpolitan 
Council. 

Object.  VI, 

Another  Plea  offer'd,  is,  that  in  the  year  1689,  many, 
wife  and  good  Prelates  of  our  own  ( commiilion'd  to  revievj 
and  correSi  our  Liturgy)  unanimoujly  agreed,  that  the  ufe  of  the  A- 
thanafian  Creed  foould  no  longer  be  impofed. 

A  N  s  w.  There  may  be  reafon  to  queftion  the  Truth  of  this 
Report.  There  are  two  Accounts  which  I  have  feen  of  This 
matter;  one  of  Dr.  Nichols,  the  other  of  Dr.  CaUmy  which  He 
received  of  a  Friend.  Dr.  Nichols  s  Account  runs  thus.  "  Atha- 
"  nafuss  Creed  being  difliked  by  many,  becaufe  of  the  Dam- 
**  natory  Claufes,  it  was  left  to  the  Minijlers  choice ,  either  to 
"  ufe  it,  or  to  change  it  for  the  Apoflles  Creed.^  Dr.  Calamys 
Account  is  thus :  "  About  the  Athanafmn  Creed,  They  came 
"  at  laft  to  this  Conclufion :  That  left  the  wholly  rejeding  it 
"  fhould  by  unreafonable  Perfons  be  imputed  to  them  as  Soci- 
"  nianifm,  a  Kubrick  ihall  be  made,  fetting  forth,  or  declaring 
*'  4lie  Curfes  denounced  tlierein  not  to  be  rcftrain'd  to  every  par- 
"  ticular  Article,  but  intended  againft  Thofe  that  deny  the  fub- 
"  ftance  of  the  Chriftiaii  Religion  in  general.  «=  Now,  from 
thefe  Two  Accounts  compared,  it  may  be  reafonableto  believe 
that  thofe  wife  and  good  Prelates  had  once  drawn  up  a  Scheme 
to  be  debated  and  canvafs'd,  in  which  Scheme  it  was  propofed 

a  Vid.  Le  Stuien:  ibid.  p.  250.  &  Differt.  Damefcen,  p.  18, 
b  Nicholfti  Apparat,  ad  Defenf.  Eccl.  Angl.  p.  9;-. 
c  Calamy'i  Life  0/ Baxter.  Vol.  i.  /).  45-5'. 

V    2  to 


1^6  Tide  ReafonalJenefs  of  'Retaining 

to  leave  every  yl//;^//?^r  at  liberty  with  rcfped  to  the  Athnneifian 
Creed :  But,  upon  more  mature  confideration,  They  cp.me  at  Ufl 
to  this  conclufiouj  to  im'pofc  the  Creed  as  before,  and  to  qua- 
lify the  Teeming  Harlhnefs  of  the  Damr/.itory  Claufes  by  a  foft- 
ning  Kubrick.  They  were  therefore,  at  length  unanimoufly  agreed 
flill  to  retain,  and  impofe  This  Creed ;  quite  contrary  to  the  Ob- 
jefiors  Report.  And  indeed  it  muft  have  appear'd  very  Allo- 
niihing  in  the  eyes  of  all  the  Reformed  Churches,  Lutheran  and 
Calvinifi  (who  have  the  greateft  Veneration  for  This  Creed)  to 
have  feen  it  wholly  rejected  by  the  Englifl)  Clergy,  when  there 
had  been  no  precedent  before  of  any  one  Church  in  Chriilcndom 
that  had  done  the  like.  All  that  ever  received  it,  have  conftantly 
retain'd  it  and  ftill  retain  it.  It  is  further  to  be  confidered,  that  what 
Thole  very  worthy  Prelates  at  that  time  intended,  fprung  from  a 
juft  and  becoming  Tendernefs  to  the  DiJJe',7ters,  becaufe  of  their 
lon2;  Scruples  againft  the  Damnatory  Claufes.  But  there  is  not  the 
fame  reafon  at  This  Day  :  The  wifer  and  more  moderate  Part 
of  the  Diffenting  Miniflers^  feem  very  well  reconciled  to  the 
'Damnatory  Claufes,  modejHy  expounded  j  as  Dr.  Wallis  particular- 
ly has  expounded  them ,  jujlly  and  truly,  as  well  as  modefily. 
And  I  am  confident,  the  foberer  Dijfenters  would  not,  at  this 
Time,  wi(h  to  fee  fo  excellent,  and  fo  ufeful  a  Form  of  Faith 
laid  afide,  only  to  fervc  the  Interefts  of  our  new  Arians.  How- 
ever, fincc  the  Damnatory  Claufes  were  the  main  difficulty,  a  better 
way  might  have  been  contriv'd  than  was  then  thought  on ;  name- 
ly, to  have  preferved  the  whole  Creed  except  thofe  Claufes,  which 
are  fcparablc  from  it.  But  the  beft  of  all,  as  I  humbly  conceive, 
is  what  has  prevailed,  and  ftill  obtains,  to  let  it  ftand  as  before ; 
fince  the  Damnatory  Claufes  have   been  often  and    fufficiently 

a  Thti  Creed  by  whtmfoever  framed,  hath  been  long  received  in  the  church,  and  hck'd  on 
MS  agreeable  to  the  Scriptures,  and  an  excellent  Explication  of  the  chrtflan  Fa:th.  Conftanti- 
noplc,  Rome,  and  the  Reformed  Churches  have   owned  it  our  pious  and  excellent 

Mr.  Baxter,  in>  his  Method  ofTheol.  p.  I  23,  Speaks  thus  of  it:  •' />j  award,  the  damnato- 
"  ry  Sentences  excepted,  or  modeflly  expounded  (fuch  a  modeft  Explication  of  the  Damna- 
"  tory  Clau/cs  fee  in  Dr.  VVallts  ^c.)  I  embrace  the  Creed  commonly  called  AthanafiusV,  at 
"  the  bejl  explication  of  the  Trinity.  And  in  Vol.  II.  of  his  works  p.  ij?.  fays  He,  I  un- 
"  feignedly  account  the  DoHrine  of  the  Trinity,  the  fum  and  kernel  of  the  Chrijlian  Religion, 
"  as  exprefi'd  in  our  Laptifm,  and  Athanafius'j  Cre,:d,  the  bejl  Explication  of  lit  I  ever  rt^d. 
Doflrioe  Si  the  Trinity  ftatcd  &c.  by  fomt  Loudon  Miniftcrs.  p.  61,  63. 

vindi- 


the  ATBANASIAN   CREED.  157 

vindicated  by  tlie  reformed  Churches  abroad,  *  as  well  as  by  our 
own  here. 

Object.   VII. 

It  is  pleaded  farther,  moflly  in  the  words  ofBilhop  T^j//(9A',that 
the  Apofiles  Creed  is  the  Rule  of  Faith ^  that  This  only  is  necejf^ry 
to  Bdptilrn^  that  what  was  once  fujficient  to  bring  Men  to  Heaven, 
mujl  be  fo  now  j  that  there  is  no  occafion  for  being  fo  minute 
and  particular  in  the  matter  of  Creeds ;  with  more  to  the 
like  purpofe. 

A  N  s  \v.  I .  Dr.  Taylor  goes  upon  a  falte  fuppofition  that  the 
Creed  called  the  ApojHes  was  compiled  by  the  Apoftles. 

2.  He  has  another  7^//^  prefumption,  appearing  all  the  way 
in  his  reafonings  on  this  Head,  that  the  Apoftles  Creed  has  been 
always  the /^?i^^  that  it  is  now  :  whereas  learned  Men  know  that 
it  was  not  brought  to  its  prefent  Form  till  about  the  year  600, 
is  nothing  elfe  but  the  Baptifmal  Creed  of  one  particular  Church, 
the  Church  of  Rome^  and  deiignedly  ^ort  for  the  eafe  of  thofe 
who  were  to  repeat  it  at  Baptifm.  Now,  when  we  are  told 
of  the  Apoftles  Creed  containing  all  that  is  necejjary  to  Salvation, 
and  no  more  than  is  necejfary  ;  we  would  gladly  know  whether 
it  be  meant  of  the  old  fhort  Roman  Creed^  or  of  the  prefent  one 
confiderably  larger :  And  if  They  intend  the  old  one,  why  Ap- 
plication is  not  made  to  our  Governors  to  lay  the  new  one  afide, 
or  to  curtail,  and  reduce  it  to  its  primitive  fizej  by  leaving  out 

a  Tentzelius,  n  Lutheran,  h  "ver^  /mart  upon  this  Head,  againft  the  Arminians,  for  their 
t^jeBing  to  the  Damnatory  Sentences. 

Verum  injuftc,  atque  impudenter  accufant  initium  Symboli,  quod  pridem  vindicarunt  no- 
ftrates  Theologi:  Dannhatoerus  in  Sty\o  v'lnd'xce  ^-  2O0.  Huljemannus  de  Auxiliis  Gratis 
p.  »i8'  Kromciycrus  in  Theologia  pofitivo  polemica.  p.  98,  ^c^.  &  in  Scrutinio  Religionum 
p.  205".  aliique  pafTim.  Tentz^el.  p.  iio.  To  thefe  which  Tentzelius  has  mentioned,  I  may 
Mdd  David  Pareus  {a  Calviniji)  in  his  comment  upon  this  Creed,  puhlijli'd  at  the  end  of  Ur- 
finus*/  Catechifm.  A,  D.  16  54.  ty  Philip  Pareus. 

b  The  old  Roman  {or  ApoftlesJ  Creed  was  no  more  than  This,  as  may  be  [sen  inBifho^ 
Ulher,  de  Symhol.  p,  6.  and  9. 

«'  I  believe  in  God  the  Father  Almighty :  And  in  fefus  Chrijl  his  only  Son  our  Lord;  who 
«'  was  born  of  the  Holy-Ghoft  and  the  Virgin  Mjiry  ;  crucified  under  Pontius  Pilate,  and  buried, 
•»  rofe  again  the  third  day  from  the  dead,  afcended  into  Heaven,  fitteth  at  the  right  Hand  of  the 
•'  lather,  from  whence  He  pall  come  to  judge  the  ^tick  and  Dead,  And  in  jhe  HolyChoJli 
♦  '  the  Holy  Church,  the  Kemijfion  of  Sim,' The  refnrrciiion  of  the  Body,  Amen, 

the 


1 J  8  The  Reafonahlenefs  of  Retaining 

the  Relief,  or  Profcflion  of'God's  being  Creator  of  Heaven  and 
Earthy  and  of  Clirift's  being  dead,  and  of  his  Defcent  into  Helly 
and  of  the  Church  being  C7^//75//V/',  an  J  of  the  commA.iion  of  Saint s, 
and  Life  everLilling,  as  unneccilary  Articles  of  Faith.  For  why 
may  not  That  fuffice  noiv^  which  was  once  fufficient  ?  or  how  can 
any  thing  be  necefary  at  This  Day,  that  was  not  fo  from  the 
Beginning? 

3,  To  fet  this  whole  matter  right,  it  ought  to  be  confider- 
ed,  that  Creeds  were  never  intended  to  contain,  as  it  were,  a 
certain  Quantity  of  Faiths  as  neceflary  to  bring  Men  to  Heaven, 
and  no  more  than  is  necellary.  Were  This  the  Cafe,  All 
Creeds  ought  precifely  to  have  confifted  of  an  ec^ual  number 
of  Articles,  and  the  fame  individual  Articles :  Whereas  there  are 
no  two  Creeds  any  whereto  be  found  which  anfwer  tofuch  exad- 
nefs.  A  plain  Argument  that  the  Church,  in  forming  of  Creeds, 
early  and  late,  went  upon  no  fuch  view,  but  upon  quite  a- 
nother  principle.  The  Defign  of  all  was,  to  keep  up  as  ftridly 
as  poilible  the  whole  Compares,  or  Fahrick  of  the  Chriftian  Faith 
as  it  ftands  in  Scripture  :  And  if  any  Fart  came  to  be  attack'd,  They 
were  then  to  bend  all  their  Cares  to  fuccour  and  relieve  That 
Part,  in  order  ftill  to  fecure  the  Whole.  Some  few  of  the  main 
Stamina,  or  chief  Lines,  were  taken  care  of  from  the  firft,  and 
made  up  the  firft  Creeds  :  particularly,  the  Doctrine  of  the  Trini' 
ty  briefly  hinted ,  and  fcarce  any  thing  more ,  becaufe  the 
Form  of  Baptifm  led  to  it.  As  to  other  Articles,  or  larger  Ex- 
plications o'i  This,  They  came  in  occaflonally,  according  as  This 
or  That  part  of  the  Chriftian  Faith  feem'd  moft  to  be  endanger'd, 
and  to  require  prefent  E^elief.  And  as  This  varied  in  feveral 
Countries ,  or  Churches  (fome  being  more  difturbed  than  others, 
and  fome  with  one  kind  of  Herefy,  others  with  another)  fo 
the  Creeds  likewife  varied  5  fome  infilling  particularly  upon  This 
Article,  others  upon  That,  as  need  required,  and  all  ftill  en- 
deavouring to  keep  up  and  maintain  one  whole  and  intire 
Syftem  of  the  Chrillian  Faith,  according  to  the  true  and  full 
meaning  of  lacred  Writ.  There  is  nothing  more  in  it  than  the 
very  nature  and  circumllance  of  the  Thing  neceflarily  leads  to. 
I  may  illuHirate  the  cafe  a  little  farther  by  an  cafy  parallel  be- 
tween 


the  ATBAN ASIAN  CREED.  ,55, 

tween  matters  of  Faith,  and  matters  of  Practice,     The  fum  of 
Chriftian  Pradice  is  contaiii'd  in  Two  brief  Rules,  To  love  Gody 
and  to   love  one's  Neighbour-,  which  comprehend  all.     No  one 
needs  more  than  This  5  nor  indeed  can  there  be  any  thing  more. 
But  then  a  perverfe  Man  may  poflibly  underftand  by  God,  not 
the  true  God,  the  God  of  Jews   and   Chriflians,  but  fome  other 
of  his  own  devifing,  or  fuch  as  has  been  received  by  Pagans,  or 
Hereticks  :  And  He  may  underftand  by  Neighbour  one  of  his  own 
Country   only,  or  Tribe,  or  Se^,  or  Family,     WqW  then,  to  ob- 
viate any  fuch  method  of  undermining  Chrijiian  Practice,  it  will 
be  neceflary  to  be  a  little   more  particular  than  barely  to  lay 
down  in  brief  To  love  God,  and  ones  Neighbour.  We    muft  add, 
The  true  God,  the  God  of  Jews  and   Chriftians,  That  very  God 
and  none  elfe  :  And  as  to  Neighbour,  we  muft  infift  upon  it,  that 
it  means,  not  This  or  That  Seci,  Tribe,  Party,  &c.  but  all  Man- 
kind.    And  now  our  Rule  of  Pra^ice  begins  to  extend  and  in- 
large  it  felf  beyond  its    primitive  Simplicity ;  but   not  without 
reafon.  To  proceed  a  little  farther  5  Miftakes,  and  perverfe  Sen- 
timents may  arife  in  the  interpreting  the  word  Love,  fo  as  there- 
by to  evacuate  and  fruftrate  the  Primary,  and  Fundamental  Rule  : 
To  corred  and  remove  which,  it  may  be  neceflary  ft  ill  farther 
to  inlarge  the  Rule  of  Practice,  and  to  branch  it  out  into  many 
other  particulars  -,  which  to  mention  would  be  needlefs.    Now 
if  fuch  a  method  as  This  will  of  courfe   be  neceflary  to  pre- 
ferve  the  EJfentials  of  Practice',   let   it   not  be  thought  ftrange 
vf  the  like  has  been   made   ufe  of  to  preferve  the  EJfentials  of 
Faith.  There  is  the  fame  Reafon,  and  the  like  Occaflon  for  Both  :- 
And  if  due  care  be  taken   in   Both,  to  make  all  the  Branches  . 
hang  naturally  upon  the  Primary  and  Fundamental  Rules,  and 
to  adopt  no  foreign  ones,  as  belonging  thereunto  when  they  re-  - 
ally  do  not  5  then  there  is   nothing  in  this    whole  Affair-  but 
a  juft  and  prudent  Care  about  what  moft  of  all  deferves  it,  and 
fuch  as  will  be  indifpenfably   required  in  every   faithful  Mini- 
fter,  or  Steward  of  the  Myfteries   of  God.     To  return  to  our 
point  in  Hand  :  As  more  and    more  of  the   facred  Truths,  in  • 
procefs  of  Time,  came  to  be  oppofcd,  or  brought  in  Queftion  5 
fo  Creeds  have  been  inlargcd  in  proportion  5  and   a^  explicite 

Pro- 


i^o  Tfje  Beafonahknefs  of  Retaining 

Profcflion  of  more  and  more  Articles  required  of  cv^ery  Candidate 
-for  Baptifm.  And  becaufe  This  was  not  fecurity  fufficient,  fmcc 
many  migiit  forget,  or  not  know,  or  not  attend  to  wiiat  They  had 
profcfs'd  in  their  BaptUm  (by  Themfelvcs  or  by  their  Sureties ) 
it  was  found  highly  expedient,  and  neceilary  to  inl'ert  one  or 
more  Creeds  in  the  (landing,  and  daily  Offices  of  the  Church; 
to  remind  people  of  That  Faith  which  They  had  folemnly  in- 
gaged  to  maintain,  and  to  guard  the  unwary  againll  the  wily 
Attempts  of  Hereticks  to  pervert  Them.  This  is  the  plain  and 
true  Account  of  Creeals,  and  of  their  ufe  in  the  Chriftian  Churches. 
And  therefore,  if  any  Man  would  talk  Senfc  againfl:  the  ufeo^ 
This, or  That  Creed  in  any  Churchy  He  ought  to  ihow,  either 
that  it  contains  fuch  Truths  as  no  Man  ever  did,  or  in  all  pro- 
bability never  will  oppofe  j  (which  will  be  a  good  Argument 
to  prove  the  Creed  Juperjiuous)  or  that  it  contains  Articles  which 
are  ?iot  true,  or  arc  at  beft  doubtful ;  which  will  be  a  good  Ar- 
gument to  prove  fuch  a  Creed  hurtful.  Now,  as  to  the  Athn- 
nnfian  Form,  it  will  hardly  be  thought  fuperflmusy  fo  long  as 
there  arc  any  ArianSy  Photmiam,  Sabelliam-,  Mdcedoma'tis^  Apol- 
lin^rians,  Nefioridns,  or  Eutjch'mns  in  this  part  of  the  World: 
And  as  to  its  being  hurtful^  That  may  then  be  proved  when 
it  can  be  fhown  that  any  of  thofe  foremention'd  Herejies  were 
no  Herefies,  or  have  not  been  juftly  condemn'd. 

If  it  be  pleaded,  that  the  Vulgar,  knowing  little  of  any  of  thofe 
Herejies,  will  therefore  know  as  little  of  what  the  Of^^means ; 
and  fo  to  Them  it-  may  be  at  lead  dry  and  infipid,  if  not 
wholly  ufelefs:  To  This  I  anfwer ;  that  there  are  no  kinds  of 
Hereticks  but  hope  to  make  the  Vulgar  underftand  their  Tenets 
refpctftively,  and  to  draw  them  afide  from  the  received  Faith 
of  the  Church  :  And  therefore  it  behoves  the  Paftors  of  the 
Church  to- have  a  J}a>ndi7ig  Form,  to  guard  the  People  againft  any 
fuch  Attempts.  The /W(^;fr  will  underftand,  in  the  general,  and 
as  far  as  is  ordinarily  to  Them  nccedhry,  the  main  Dodrines  of  a 
Tri'/iity  in  unity,  and  of  God  iiicarrmte :  And  as  to  particular 
Explications,  whenever  they  havcoccafion  to  look  farther,  they 
will  find  the  true  ones  laid  down  in  this  Creed ;  wl,iich  will 
be  ufeful  to  prevent   their  being   impofed  -upon    at   any  time 

with 


th   ATUAKASIAN    CREED.  itJi 

with  filfe  ones.  If  They  never  have  occafion  to  go  farther 
than  generals,  there  is  no  Hurt  done  to  Them  by  ahumlmt 
Caution  :  If  they  have,  here's  a  Diredion  ready  for  them  to 
prevent  Miftakes.  It  is  not  pretended  tiiat  all  arc  capable  of 
feeing  through  every  nicety,  or  of  perceiving  the  full  Intent  and 
Aim  of  every  part  of  This  Form,  and  what  it  alludes  to.  Bur, 
as  many  as  are  capable  of  being  fet  wrong  in  any  one  Brancli, 
(by  the  fubtlety  of  SeducersJ  are  as  capable  of  being  kept  right- 
by  This  Rule  given  them :  And  They  will  as  eafily  underftand 
one  fide  of  the  Queftion,  as  they  will  the  other.  The  Chri- 
ftian  Churches  throughout  the  World,  ever  fince  the  Multipli- 
cation of  HerefieSj  have  thought  it  neceflary  to  guard  their 
people  by  fome  fuch  Forms  as  thefe  in  Handing  ufe  amongft 
them.  The  Orie?itd  Churches,  which  receive  not  this  Creed 
into  their  Conftant  Offices,  yet  more  than  fupply  the  want  of 
it,  either  by  other  the  like  Creeds,*  or  by  their  folemn  ftated  Pray- 
ers in  their  Liturgies,  wherein  they  cxprefs  their  FMth  as  fully, 
and  particularly  ('or  more  fo^)  as  This  Creed  does :  And  They 
are  not  fo  much  afraid  of  puz-ling  and  perplexing  the  Vulgar  by 
doing  it,  as  They  are  of  betraying,  and  expojing  them  to  the 
Attempts  of  Seducers,  Ihould  they  not  do  it.  For  which  reafon 
alfo  They  frequently  dired  their  Prayers  to  God  the  Son,  as 
well  as  to  God  the  Father  j  being  in  That  cafe  more  folicitous 
than  the  L^tin  Churches  have  been,  becaufe  They  have  been 
oftner  difturbed  by  Arians,  and  other  Impugners  of  Chrift's  Di- 
^inity.<^  v 

Upon  the  whole,  I  look  upon  it  as  exceeding  ufeful,  and  even 
necejfary,  for  every  Church  to  have  fome  fuch  Form  as  This,  or 
fomething  equivalent,  open  and  common  to  all  its  Members; 
that  none  may  be  led  aftray  for  want  of  proper  Caution,  and 
previous  Inftrudion  in  what  fo  nearly  concerns  the  whole  Stru- 

a  See  the  Creed  of  the  Armenians  in  Sn  P.  Ricaut.  p.  411.  Sec. 

b  See  Ludolphus  fl//?i?r.  JEtkiopA.  5.  c-  f.  and  Renaudot'^  Orient.  Liturg.  pafllm. 

c  Nam  cum  omnes  Orationes  Latini  Cunonis,  ex  vetuftiffima  Traditione,  ad  Deum  P<i- 
/rew  dirigantur;  in  Oriente  plures  ad  Filium:  Nempe,  quia  magis  confliclata  eft  Arinno- 
tum,  8c  aliorum  qui  ejus  Divinitatem  impugnabant,  contentionibus  OrientaliSiquzm  Qui- 
dentalis  Ecclefia.  Renaitdot.  de  Oriental.  Liturg.  Vol.  1.  p.  162- 

X  dure 


i6z  The  Reafonahlenefs  of  Retaining 

(flure'  and  Fabrick  of  the  Chriflian  Faith.  *  As  to  This  particu 
Jar  Form,  it  has  lb  long;  prevailed,  and  has  fo  well  aniwcr'd 
the  life  intended,  that,  all  Things  confider'd,  there  can  be  no 
fufficient  realbn  for  changing  ^ny  part  of  it,  much  Ids  for /^j/;^^ 
the  whole  ^Jide.  There  are  feveral  other  Creeds,  very  ijood  ones, 
( xho  fomcwhat  larger)  which,  had  They  been  made  choice 
of  for  common  ufe,  might  polTibly  have  done  as  well.  The 
Creeds  I  mean  (of  which  there  is  a  great  number)  drawn 
up  after  the  Council  of  Chalccdon,  and  purpolely  contriv'd  to 
obviate  all  the  Herefies  that  ever  had  infelted  the  Chriilian 
Church.  But,  Thofe  that  dillike  This  Creed,  would  much  more 
diflikc  the  other  j  as  being  ftill  more  particular^  and  explicite 
in  regard  to  the  Neflori^in,  Eutychian^  and  Monothelite  Herefies, 
and  equally  full  and  clear  for  the  Dodrine  of  the  Trinity. 

To  conclude ;  fo  long  as  there  fhall  be  any  Men  left  to  op- 
pofe  the  Doctrines  which  This  Creed  contains ,  fo  long  will  it 
be  expedient  J  and  even  necejjary  to  continue  the  Ufe  of  it,  in 
order  to  preferve  the  reft :  And,  I  fuppofe,  when  we  have  none 
remaining  to  find  fault  with  the  Doctrines,  there  will  be  none 
to  objed  againft  the  Ufe  of  the  Creed,  or  fo  much  as  to  wiHi 
to  have  it  laid  afide. 

a  To  this  purfofe  (peaks  Johannes  Pappus,  In  the  name  of  the  Lutheran  Churches,  cons' 
ment'ing  on  the  Augsburg  ConfeJJion» 

Semper  in  Ecclefia  fcriptorurn  quorundam  publicorum  ufus  fuit,  quibus  Doftrinx  DI- 
vinirus  rcvelatae  de  certis  Capitibus  Summa  comprehenderetur,  &  contra  Haerericos,  aliof- 
que  AJverfarios  defenderetur.  Talia  fcripta,  licet  perbrcvia,  funt  SymboU  ilia  totius  Ec- 
clefiXi  omnium  Hcminum  confenfu  recepta,  Apoflolicum,  NicAnum,  Athnnafianum.  Jonn. 
I'app.  Comm.  in  ConfcfT.  Augurt:.  fol.  i. 

I  take  This  upon  the  Credit  o/Nic.  Serarius,  who  quotes  the  fujfage  from  Pappus.  Ser»f. 
ia  Sytiib.  Atbanaf.  p.  9,  Tom.  x. 


^i 


i<j5 

An  ATTENT>IX  to  Chapter  the  Third,  which 
treats  of  Antient  Comments. 

1  intimated  above,  p.  34,  that  FortunMuis  Comment  upon  57 o 
the  Athanaffin  Creed,  tho'  before  pubUIli'd,  might  dcferve 
a  fecond  publication,  and  be  made  much  more  corred  than  it 
appears  in  Muratoriuss  2d  Tome  of  Anecdom :  This  gave  me 
the  iirft  Thought  of  fubjoinmg  an  Appendix  to  the  foregoing 
Sheets.  But  having  withal  received  fome  farther  informations 
relating  to  other  Comments  upon  the  fame  Creed,  lam  willing 
to  impart  them  alfo  to  the  Reader,  at  the  fame  Time. 

The  next  intire  Comment,  after  FortunatusSj  is  Brum'Sy  as  1051 
may  be  feen  in  the  Table  of  Comments,  p.  45.  I  have  in 
Pages  36th,  and  37th,  numbred  up  feveral  manufcript  Copies 
of  Brum's  Comment :  The  doing  of  which  will,  I  conceive, 
be  of  This  ufe,  at  lead,  to  the  Publick,  that  the  feveral  Ma- 
nufcripts  hitherto  concealed  under  general  Titles,  as  anony- 
mous Pieces,  may  be  better  known  hereafter,  and  refcrr'd  to 
their  proper  Author.  For  which  reafon  alfo  I  think  it  worth 
the  mentioning,  that  fome  other  Copies  of  the  fame  Com- 
ment may  be  added  to  the  former,  being  in  feveral  Libraries 
as  here   fpecified. 

1.  There  is  one  in  the  Library  of  St.  John  Bapt'tjFs  Colle^^c, 
Oxonj  N.  1874  of  the  OA;/or^  Catalogue,  mark'dG.  42.  Title, 
Comment fbrius  in  Symbolimi  Athanajii.  By  the  be2;innin"^  and  con- 
cluding Words  of  That  Commentary  (a  Tranfcript  of  which 
Ijas  been  fent  me  by  a  \worthy  Member  of  That  Society)  I  am 
well  allured  that  it  is  Bruno  s  Comment. 

2.  In  the  Bodleian.  Catal.  N.  994.  Laud.  E.  71.  Athmafii  Sym- 
holiim  cum  Glojjk.  This  alfo,  as  I  am  certified  by  a  Learned 
Gentleman  who  examin'd  it,  is  Brum's  Comment.  The  Title, 
Fides  Sm6ii  Athanafd  Epifcopi, 

3.  In  ^^/io/ College.  Catal.  N.  210.  mark'd  B.  9.  Athanafii 
Symholum  cum  Comment ario-.  Another  Copy  of  Bruno's  Com- 
ment. 

X  2  4.  In 


1^4  A  P  P  E  K  D  E  X. 

4.  Ill   Merto'fi    College  (Catal.  N.  675 208.  j  S',mholum 

Ath,%a(ijii  cum  Glojfa,     This  alfo  is   Bruno's  Comaicnt,  and  may 
be  rcckon'd  amoiiii;  the  more  antient  Copies  of  it. 

There  are,  very  probably,  Ibveral  other  Copies  of  Bnmo\  Com- 
ment in  our  Libraries  here  in  England  ( as  I  judge  from  the 
Oxford  Catalogue)  under  the  like  general  Titles  with  thofe  a- 
bove  5  or  perhaps  among  the  Pfa,ltcria  glofjata.  But  I  con- 
tente  my  felf  at  prcfent  with  Thofe  already  mention'd  ;  not 
having  Leifure  or  Opportunity  to  make  further  hiquiries. 
2220  As  to  the  other  Comments  below  Bruno  s^  I  have  nothing 
farther  to  add  till  I  come  to  Alexander  Neckh.%m\.  I  mention  a 
Comment  of  his  in  the  3  9th  Page  above.  I  refcrr'd  to  a  ma- 
nufcript  Copy  of  it  in  the  Bodleian.  E.  7.  8.  Oxon.  Catal.  N. 
2339.  There  is  Another  Copy  of  the  fame  Comment,  in  the 
Bodleian  alio.  E.  6.  11.  N.  2330.  The  Title  of  the  Comment 
is  Expofitio  Fidel  Catholics  a  Afagljiro  Alexandra  edlcia.  This 
Copy  is  thought  to  be  about  50  years  later  than  the  former. 
It  may  be  of  ufe  to  note  down  the  firft  words  ^  of  the  Coryi- 
me}2t,  that  if  there  be  any  other  anonymous  Copies  of  the  fame, 
it  may  be  known,  by  comparing,  to  what  Author  they  be- 
long. I  Ihould  take  notice  that  E.  7.  8.  makes  about  10  Leaves 
in  Follo^  with  double  Columns  in  each  page.  E.  6.  11  makes 
4  Leaves  in  fUlo,  with  three  Columns  in  every  page,  and  in  a 
linaller  Hand  than  the  other.  From  hence  fome  judgment  may 
be  made  of  the  Size,  or  Length  of  the  Comment :  The  Cha- 
racler  in  Both  is  fmall,  and  full  of  Abbreviations;  fo  that  one 
may  imagine  the  Comment  to  be  a  pretty  large  one. 
^330  I  fnall  next  take  notice  of  Another  Comment,  a  printed  One, 
which  before  cfcapcd  me.  It  is  of  the  famous  Alexander  Hales, 
in  his  Third  Part  of  his  Summa^  under  Qiixlh  69.  After  treat- 
ing on  the  Apoftles  and  Nlcene  Creeds,  He  comes  to  the  Atha- 
najianj  upon  which  He  raifes  feveral  Queftions  and  Doubts,  as 
He  goes  through  it,  and  anfwers  them  all-  along  in  the  Scho- 
lalUck  way,,  referring  fometimcs  to  the  elder  Writers,  and  par- 
ticularly to  St.  yltijlln,  to  whom  He  attributes  Gennadiuss  Trea- 

a  Hxc  eft  enim  Viifloria  cjux  viacit  mundum,  Fides  noftra.  Signantcr  dicit  vuU,  ic 
?ion  dicit  c^uicu/ique  /alvut  erit.. 

tifc 


APPENDIX.  ,<jj 

tife  (le  Ecclefiajlicis  DogmMibtis,  according  to  the  Error  of  That 
Time  5  But  I  proceed. 

I  took  notice  above  (^ p.  39)  of  a  LMif^  Comment  afcribed  i34^ 
to  Richard Hampole .  I  intimated  (p.44jrome  Doubts  Iliad concern- 
hig  the  Author  of  That  Comment  j  having  reafon  to  believe 
that  the  three  Copies  mentioned  by  Tentzelius  are  nothing  elfe 
but  fo  many  Copies  of  that  very  Comment  which  partes  under 
the  name  of  Hampole:  And  yet  one  of  'em  is  judged  to  be  above. 
500  years  older*  than  1686,  which  is  150  years  before  Ha?n- 
poles  Days.  It  is  poillble  that  Jodchim  FellcmSy  the  Compiler 
of  the  Catalogue  of  the  Leipfick  Library,  might  miftake  in  judg- 
ing of  the  Age  of  the  Manufcript :  But  it  appears  much  more 
probable  that  the  Editors  of  That  Comment  were  miftaken  in 
afcribing  it  to  Hampole.  However  That  be,  I  would  here  ob- 
ferve,  that  there  is  in  Ma,gd(ilen  College,  in  Oxford,  a  Com- 
ment intituled  Expofitio  in    Sjmboltim    Athandfianum  per  Jami^ 

enfem  (N.    Catal.  2256.- ■  115  j  which   is  no  other  than 

This  very  Comment  that  partes  in  the  Prints  under  the  name 
of  Fdch.  Hampole,  The  Catalogue's  afcribing  it  to  Jfinuenfisy  was 
owing,  I  fuppofe,  to  an  occafional  PaflTage,  in  that  Manu- 
fcript, relating  to  the  Athanafmn  Creed,  cited  from  Joham- 
?ie$  Januenfiss  Catholicon,  or  Didionary ,  under  the  word 
Symboltim.  The  Comment  however,  I  fay,  is  the  fame  with 
that  which  partes  for  Hampole's,  as  may  plainly  appear  from  the 
Beginning  of  it,  which  I  have  tranfcrib'd  into  the  margin j '^  only 
filling  up  an  OmiJJion  in  it,  occafion'd,  as  is  very    common,  by 

a  Tentzelius  fer'itei  thus. 

C^portune  ad  manus  meas  pervenft  Refponfio  Ampl.  Tellerl,  qua  ntionem  Codicis  la- 
tini  Lipfienfis  in  Prsfatione  a  me  citati  prolixius  expofuit.  Ait  cnim,  membranaceura 
iftum  Codicem  ante  CCCCC  annos  &  ultra,  eleganter  fcriptum  videri;  additas  etiam  eflc 
non  interlineares  tantum  notas,  fed  &  marginales  utrinque;  in  dextro  videlicet  &  finijlro 
paginarum  latere:  Rniricam  autem  Symboli  noftri  ita  fe  habere j  Tides  ^naftafii  Paps.  In 
dtxtro  primae  paginse  haec  Icgt  verba  :  iiic  ratio  Fidei  Catholia  traditur  in  veterii/us  Cods- 
cibns,  &:  reliqua,  quae  antea  ex  IVIS  Bibliothecas  Ducalis  attuii.  Unde  patet,  eafdem  plane 
Gloflas  in  utroque  Codice  reperirij  prssfertira  quum  in  Sinijiro  alterius  margine,  haec 
etiam  verba  legi  referat  Fillerus:  Htc  beatus  ^nafiafi:is  hberum  arbitrtHtn  pofuit  See. 
Tentzel.  p,  U)-. 

b  Haec  ratio  Fidei  Catholicae  traditur  etiam  in  veteribus  Codicibus  a  Beato  ^tham/io     , 
Mexandrino  confcripta.     Et  puto,  quod  idcirco  tarn  piano  8c  brevi  Sermone   tradita  fir, 
lit  omnibiis  Catkolicis,  &  minus  eruditis,  Tutamcn  Defenfionis  prseftaret  adverfus  illam 

the.       ~^ 


t66  APPENDIX, 

the  repetition  of  tiic  fame  word.  Thtic  may  be  a  f'ood  ufc 
made  of  That  Manufcript  in  Alagd^len  College,  for  correcting 
the  printed  Copy,  which  is  very  faulty,  both  in  ivords,  and 
order.  The  Comment  ought  to  begin  as  it  begins  in  That 
Manufcript  J  and  not  with  the  word;).  Hie  hcntus  Ath^nafius^  as 
in  the  Prints.  The  Editors  did  not  undcrf  and ,  or  did 
not  confider,  the  nature  and  compofition  of  7  hat  Comment. 
The  Author,  whoever  He  was,  had  made  Two  Columns, 
one  on  each  hand,  with  the  Athmiafian  Creed  in  the  middle. 
On  the  Left-handy  which  is  the  firft  place.  He  fet  Bruno'sQavn- 
ment,  and  on  the  Right-h.ind,  in  the  other  Column,  He  car- 
ried down  another  Comment,  either  of  his  own,  or  borrowed. 
The  firfl  Note  on  the  Right-hand  was  plainly  defign'd  for  an 
introdudion  to  the  reft,  and  therefore  ought  to  be  fet  firft; 
tho*  the  Editors,  confidering  only  the  pofition  of  the  Notes, 
began  from  the  Left-hand^  with  the  firft  words  of  Brum's  Com- 
ment. The  Oxford  Copy  obferves  the  true  natural  Order, 
and  may  very  probably  be  of  good  ufe  all  the  way  through, 
for  the  better  digefting  and  methodizing  that  Comment,  or 
Comments,  being  in  reality  Two  Comments  mix'd  and  blend- 
ed together. 

I  ftiould  obferve  of  the  Oxford  Copy,  that  after  the  Com- 
ment there  is  in  the  fapie  Hand,  This  Note  :  H.u  confcriptafunt 
a  quodam  antique  Libro.  Poftibly,  This  may  be  of  ibme  ufe 
for  the  determining  whether  that  Comment  be  really  HampoU'sy 
or  no.  For,  if  the  Manufcript  be  not  much  later  than  141  5 
(it  muft  be  fo  late,  fince  it  fixes  That  very  Date  to  Dr.  Uller- 
(Ions  Expofition  of  the  Six  Pfahns)  it  may  be  probably  argued 
that  any  thing  of  Hampoles^  who  flourifhed  but  about  80  years 
before,  would  not  have  been  called  antiquus  Liber,  an  antient 
Book.  But  This  1  leave  to  farther  inquiries,  not  infifting  upon 
it,  fince  the  Argument  is  but  probable  at  the  beft ;  and  1  do  not 
know  but  the  Manufcript  may  be  feveral  years  later  than  141  5> 

Tempcftatem  [^quam  contrarius  vcntus,  hoc  eft,  Diabolus,  excitavit  per  ^rrium;  quam 
Tempeftatem]  qui  fugerc  dcilJcrar,  hinc  Fidci  unitatcm  (al.  verit^tern)  intcgram  &  invi- 
olabilcm  tcnear.  Ira  cniin  incipit  ipfuni  opufculum,  diccns,  ^Mcun^ue  vult  falvut  &c. 
Hie  beatus  Atkana/ius  liberum  arbitrium  pofuit.  (^c. 

tho' 


) 


APPENDIX.  16  J 

tho*  hardly  later  than  the  middle  of  that  Century.  XJllerfion  is 
undoubtedly  the  lateft  Author  in  That  Colledion.  Vetrus  Flo- 
riljienjisy  or  /'/d)r^^V;?//V(otherwile  called  Petrus  de  Rarentds)  wrote 
in  1 3  74  :  ^  Jmuienfis^  Gorrhmn,  Lyra^  and  Hampole  are  all  older 
than  He:  The  laft  therefore  is  Utlerfton,  who  was  probably  ftill 
living  when  that    Manufcript  was  written.  But  enough  of  This. 

There  remains  one  Comment  more  to  be  Ipokcn  to,  and  1380 
That  is  the  Comment  which  I  have  afcribed  to  Wickliff^  above 
p.  39.  r before  took  notice  oi  three  manufcript  Copies  of  it: 
To  which  1  would  now  add  a  Fourth,  which  is  in  the  Bodleian 
(N.  66  8.  Laud.  C.  16.  J  under  the  general  Title  of^  Glofs  upon 
^icmzque  vtdt.  I  have  nothing  further  to  obferve  concerning 
it  but  This,  that  whereas  I  had  before  a  Sufpicion  that  This 
Comment  might  be  Hampole's,  being  annex'd  fomctimes  to 
Hampole's  EnglKh  Comment (iry  on  the  Pfdlms  and  Hymns,  I  am 
now  the  lefs  inclinable  to  fulped  it,  having  feen,  in  Sidney  Col- 
lege in  Cambridge,  a  very  old  Copy  of  Hampole's  Commentary, 
which  runs  through  the  Pfdms,  and  all  the  common  Hymns 
and  CanticleSj  but  has  not  this  Comment  on  the  Creed  in  it  5 
tho'  the  Manufcript  appears  to  be  very  whole  and  intire,  and 
no  Leaves,  or  Leaf  cut  out.  This  confirms  me  the  more  in 
my  firft  Thought,  that  the  Comment  is  really  Wickliff^s. 

I  have  a  few  things  to  add  about  FortunMuss  Comment, 
which  is  to  fhut  up  the  Appendix,  and  for  the  fake  of  which  chief- 
ly the  Appendix  hath  been  added. 

I  have  made  frequent  ufe  of  it  in  the  preceding  Sheets :  And 
now  my  defign,  in  reprinting  it,  is  to  let  the  Reader  fee  what 
th^  Comment  is  which  \  fo  frequently  refer  to ;  that  To  He  - 
may  judge  for  Himfelf  whether  it  really  be  what  I  fuppofc, 
and  I  think,  with  good  reafon,  A  Comment  of  the  6th  Cen- 
tury, and  juftly  afcribed  to  Fortunatus.  I  have  endeavour'd  to 
make  it  as  corred  as  poflible,  by  fuch  Helps  as  I  could  any  where 
procure  j  which  are  as  follow. 

I.  The  printed  Copy  of  it,  publifh'd  by  Muratorim  from  a 
Manufcript  of  the  Amhrofmn  Library,  about  600  years  old. 

a  See  Oudin.  Tom,  3.  p.  \x\%. 

%  >  A, 


i6S  APPENDIX, 

2.  A  manufcript  Copy  from  Oxford,  fonnd  among  Francifcui 
Junius' sMSS J  which  appears,  by  the  C/7/jr^:7^r,  to  be  above  700 
years  old,  or  near  800.  As  it  is  older  than  Muratorius\,  To  is  it 
alfo  more  faithful ;  and  tho'  it  has  a  great  many  Faults  both  in 
the  Orthography,  and  Synteix,  owmg  either  to  the  Ignorance  of 
the  Age,  or  of  the  Co^ift,  yet  it  does  not  appear  to  have  been 
interpolated,  hke  the  other,  or  to  have  been  induftrioully  al- 
tered in  any  part. 

3  Befides  thofe  Two  Copies  of  the  intirc  Comment,  I  have 
had  fome  Afllftance  from  fuch  Parcels  of  it  as  are  to  be  met 
with  in  Writers  that  have  borrowed  from  it.  Bruno's  Com- 
ment furnifhes  us  with  fome  parts  which  He  had  taken  in- 
to his  own.  But  there  is,  among  the  Suppofititious  Works 
afcribed  to  St  Aujlin,  a  Treatife  intituled  Sermo  de  Symbolo,* 
which  has  feveral  fcatter'd  Fragments  of  this  very  Comment  in 
it.  The  whole  Treatife  is  a  Farrago,  or  Collection  from  feveral 
other  Writers ;  as  Ruffinus,  dejarius.  Pope  Gregory  i .  and  Ivo 
Carnotetifis.  By  the  lall  mentioned ,  one  may  be  allured  that 
The  Collection  is  not  older  than  the  Clofe  of  the  Xlth  Centu- 
ry j  it  may  be  later.  It  will  be  ferviceable  however,  fo  far  as  it  goes, 
for  rertoring  the  true  readings  where  our  Copies  arc  corrupt  5 
which  is  the  ufc  I  make  of  it. 

In  my  3  4th  Page,  above,  I  threw  in  a  Remark  about  Pareuss 
quoting  a  part  of  Fortunatuss  Comment  under  the  name  of  Eu- 
phronius  Presbyter,  which  I  wonder'd  at.  I  fhould  obferve  to  the 
Reader,  that  thofe  words  of  Pareus  are  not  in  the  older  Edi- 
tion of  his  Comment  A.  D.  1627,  but  in  the  later  one  of 
1634.  and  was  probably  not  thought  on  by  David  Pareus  the 
Father,  but  added  by  Philip  Parens  the  Son.  But  I  am  ftill  at  a 
lofs  to  know  whence  He  had  it,  and  who  is  meant  by  Euphro- 
nius  Presbyter.  Fortunatus  had  fome  intimacy  with  Euphronius, 
Bifhop  of  'TourSy  of  that  Time.  Whether  his  name  appearing 
among  the  manuicript  Copies  of  Fortunatuss  pieces  might  occa- 
fion  fuch  a  Miftake,  I  know  not.  I  may  obferve  that  Bruno's 
Comment  has  the  very  fame  paflage  in   it,  only  under  a  difFe- 

a  Atigiijiin.  Oper.  Tom.  6.  in  Appendicc.  p.  178.  Ed.  Bencd. 

rent 


? 


APPENDIX.  10'^ 

rent  Order  of  the  words :  But  neither  will  this  help  m  to  ac- 
count for  its  being  cited  under  the  name  of  Euphromns  Presbyter, 
which  has  no  fimilitude  with  the  name  of  Brum,  who  was  Bi- 
fhop  of  Wurtzhurg.     But  to  return  to  our  Comment. 

This  Comment  of  Forturmttis^y  if  of  no  other  ufe,  will  at 
lead  be  valuable  for  its  Age,  and  as  bearing  Teftimony  to  the 
Antiqmtyj  and  early  Reception  of  the  Creed.  We  have  no  o- 
ther  Comment  upon  That  Creed  till  near  300  years  after,  in 
the  Time  of  Hincmdr:  And  his  is  rather  a  Paraphrafe  than  a 
Comment ;  and  not  upon  the  intire  Creed,  nor  digefted  into 
any  juft  and  regular  order,  but  only  fcatter'd  Hints,  here  and 
there,  upon  fome  parts  of  the  Creed  as  He  had  occalion  to 
cite  Them.  Now  I  am  mentioning  Hincm^r,  I  may  cite  one 
paflage  from  Him  upon  a  part  of  the  Creed,  which  may  Teem 
to  want  explication  as  much  as  any,  and  which  I  have  fpent 
fome  Thoughts  upon  in  Page  144.  The  words  are^  very  ap- 
poiite  to  the  purpofe,  and  the  more  valuable  asihowing  how 
that  part  of  the  Creed  was  underftoodfo  long  agoe  as  900  years 
upwardsj  or  nearly. 

Nothing  now  remains  but  to  lay  before  the  learned  Reader 
Fortunatus's  Comment  in  its  native  Language,  and  therewith 
to  clofe  up  our  Inquiries  concerning  the  Athmafim  Creed. 

The  Various  Le5iionSy  all  that  are  properly  fuch,  are  carefully 
noted  at  the  Bottom  of  the  Page  5  that  fo  the  Reader  may  judge 
whether  the  Text  be  what  it  fhould  be,  or  corred  it,  if  it  ap- 
pears otherwife.  But  I  Ihould  hint,  that  there  are  feveral  little 
Variations  in  the  av/^r^yManufcript,  which  I  take  no  notice  of, 
as  not  being  properly  Various  Legions. 

I.  ^MciSx's&zizm^rzXy  Orthographical:  As  a  permutation  of  Let- 
ters 5  ufing  d  for  t,  in  capud  and  reliquid,  for  caput  and  reliquit ;  e  for 
iy  in  Trea  for  Tria  j  and  /  for  e,  in  calit  for  calet,  and  the  like  : 
0  for  u  in  fervoUs,  p  for  b  in  optenit  for   obtinet  j    v  confonant 

a  F.t  in  hac  Trinitate  nihil  eft  prius,  nihil  pofterius;  nihil  majus,  aut  minus  j  fed  totJC 
tres  perfonas  coaeternae  fibi  funt  8c  cosqualcs:  ita  ut  per  omnia  &  unitas  Deiratis  in  Tri- 
nitate Perfonarum,  8c  Trinitas  Perfonarum  in  unitate  Deitatis  veneranda  eft.  H'mcm.  de 
non  Trin.  Deit.  Tom.  !.  p.  ^40. 

Y  for  K 


,70  APPENDIX. 

for  b,  ill  edarrnvh  for  ena^rmhit ;  the'  fuch  as  this  lad:  is  might  be 
noted  among  Various  LeclionSj  in  cafes  more  difputablc. 

To  This  Head  may  be  referred  fome  antique,  and  now  ob- 
folcte  Spelliniz.s:  inmenjus  ioi  immenfus^inmortdiisio^  immortalis, 
tnlefus  for  ilhtfiis^  conlocdvit  for  colloc^vit,  dbtojcittir  for  dignojci- 
tur,  and  the  like. 

2.  Act ive  Terminations  oiNcxhsyioiPiiJJive  \  ^s  fi?iire  io^  finiri^ 
cogitare  for  cogitari ;  tho'  thefe  may  be  referr'd  to  the  former 
Head,  being  only  changing  the  letter  /  for  the  letter  e.  Bomifiat- 
for  domirmtur  I  take  notice  of  among  the  Various  Leciio?is. 

3 .  Faults  in  the  Formatiofi'  of  Verbs ;  As  abfiuUret  for  tolle- 
rct,  "jivendos  for  vivc/ites -■,  to  which  may  be  added  mor-Jit^  for 
mormrdit,  having  been  long  out  of  ufe. 

4.  Manifefi  Faults  in  Concord :  As  humani  CarntSy  for  humm- 
Tjar,  eodem  CaptivitAtCj  for  ecidem.  But  where  there  can  be  any 
doubt  of  the  Conftrudion,  I  mark  fuch  among  the  Various  Le- 
£iions,  leaving  the  Reader  to  judge  of  them. 

Thefc  and  other  the  like  Niceties  are  generally  neglecled  in 
Editions  of  Authors;  it  being  both  needlefs,  and  endlefs  to 
note  them.  But  I  was  willing  to  hint  fomething  of  them  in 
this  place,  becaufe  They  may  be  of  ufe  to  Scholars  for  the 
making  a  judgment  of  the  value  of  a  Manufcript ;  and  fome- 
times  of  the  Tmic^  or  Vlace ;  as  alfo  of  the  manner  how  a  Copy- 
was  taken,  whether  by  the  Ear  or  by  the  Eye^  from  word 
of  Mouth,  or  meerly  from  a  Writing  laid  before  the  Copift. 
Befides  that  if  we  can  diftinguifh  in  the  prefent  Cafe,  as  per- 
haps a  good  Critick  may,  the  Particularities  of  the  Author  from 
tliofe  of  his  Tranfcribers ;  They  may  poflibly  afford  fome  ad- 
ditional Argument  for  the  afcertaining  the  Author  of  the. 
Comment. 


Expo- 


ATTEN'DIX.  171 

ExpofitioFlDEI     CATHOLIC2S  Scriptaannc 

*^  circiter  5-70. 

FORTUNATr. 

QuicuNQjUE  vu/t  falviis  effe ,^  ante  omnia  opus  efl 
ut  teneat  Cathollcam  Fidem :  ^am  niji  quifque  in^ 
tegram,  inviolatamque  fervaverh,  abjque  dubio  in  aternum 
peribit  ^ 

Fides  dicitur  Credulitas,  five  Credentia.'^  \_Primo  ergo  omnmm  Fides  ne- 
cejjaria  efi^  Jicut  ^foflolica  docet  attUoritas  diccns',  fine  Fide  impodibile  eft 
placere  Deo.  Conjiat  enim  mmimm  ad  vtram  pervenire  pojfe  BeAtitudinemy 
nifi  Deo  flaceati  ^  Deo  nemimm  p'accre  p"jf€->  ^'ifi  per  Fidem.  fides  Kam^ 
que  efl  Bomrum  omnium  Fundament  urn,  Fidts  hamdnd  faint  ts  iniUHm,  Sine 
hac  nemo  ad  Filiorum  Dei  potefl  Cof'fjrtium  pervenire  i  quia  Jine  ipfa  nee  in 
hoc  fectdo  quifquam  Juflificationis  conjequitur  Grattam ,  nee  in  fnturo  vitam 
pojjidebit  tternam.  Et  Ji  quis  heic  non  ambui'Vcrit  per  fidem,  non  perveniet 
ad  Speciem  beatam  Domini  mftri  Jeju  Chrifli'^  ~\  Carholica  unive'ia'is  di- 
citur, id  eft,  refta,  quam  Ecclefia  univir'a^  tenere  debet.  Ecclefiss  dici- 
tur Congregatio  ChrifHanorum,  five  conventu*  Pcpulo.  um.  \_Non  emm^ 
fcut  Conventimla  H^reticorum-,  in  aliquibus  Regionum  partibm  <:oar£iaturf  fed 
per  totam  terrarum  Orbem  diLitata  diffunditHr  ^.  ] 

a  Ita  fc  habet  TituUis  in  Codice  Muratonl.  Aliter  in  Oxonienfi.  viz.  "Expofitio  in  Tide 
CctthoUca:  pro  in  lulem  Catholkam,  ex  corrupta  loquendi  ratione  apud  Scriptores  Gratis 
mediae. 

b  Ejfe  fJvus.  Cod.  Murat. 

c  Pofterior  hic  Symboli  Claufula ,  incipiens  a  ^uam  nifi,  non  habetur  in  Cod. 
OxdTiienfi. 

d  Ita  Cod.  Oxon,  prima  ha:c  pericope  deeft  in  Murator.  Conf.  Tirun.  in  Symb. 

e.  Q.u£e  uncinulis  includuntur,  non  comparent  in  MS  Oxonienfi.  Nee  enim  Fortunati 
videntur  efle,  itd  Alcuini  potius;  apud  Quern  eadera  fere  verbatim  leguntur.  ( De  F  d. 
Trin.  1.  I.  c  t,  p.  jey-)  Alcuinus  vero  maximam  partem  mutuatus  eft  a  Fulgcutio. 
(  de  Fid.  ad  Petrum.  Piolog.  p.  500.  ed.  Parif. )  Sed  varia  Exemplaria  varie  Senreiitiam 
claudunt.  Fulgentius  Icgit,  non  perveniet  ad  fpectem;  nee  quicquam  ultra.  Alcuinus,  non 
perveniet  ad  fpectem  beat&  vificnis  Domini  nojlri  fefn  Chriftt.  Ab  utrifque  ab»t  Le(5lio 
Muratorii. 

f  Univerfa  Ecclefia.    Cod.  Mur-  &  Brunonis. 

g  Cod.  Muratorii  habet  quippe,  poft  Ecclefia:  quam  voculam,  utpote  ineptam,  faltera 
otiofam,  expunximus,  Fide  Cod.  Oxonienfis.  Conf.  Brunon.  in  hoc  loco. 

h  Uncis  hie  inclufa  non  habentur  in  Codice  oxonienfi.  Verba  nimirum  funt,  non 
Tortunati,  fed  Ijidori  Hi/pal:  Orig.  1.  8.  c.  i.  Alio  proinde  Charaftere  imprimenda  cu- 
ravimus. 

Y  z  Vt 


172.  J  T  T  E  N  T>  1  X. 

\)l  nnmn  T)eum  m  Trhiitate,  &  Trmitatem  in  unitate 
Teneremur  :  Jit  cieJamus,  &-  colamus,  &:  confitean-iur  [Trinitatem  inpcrfo. 
'.isy  XJnitMcm  in  fuhflam'tn.  Hanc  quojue  Trinitatem  pirjonarutn,  at  que  Hmtattm 
u,itHr<£  Piophcta  HA.s  rcvclatam  jil/t  non  tAcmt^  cuo-i  fe  duit  ^ir.ij.him  vi' 
(lijfe  clamant la^  Srndiis,  Sandu^,  Sanftus,  Dorainus  Deus  habaotli.  Zbi 
prorfus  in  co  cjmd  dicitw  tiriio  Sanc^us,  ptrjonar^im  Trinitatem  ;  in  eo  vcro 
quod  jemel  dmryms  Dominus  Dcus  Sabaoth,  divmd  nature  cornojcimtti  nni- 
tdttm  ^ .] 

Neqiie  couftindentes  perfonas :  Ut  Sabellius  eirat,  qui  IpfLim 
dicit  efle  Patrem  in  Perlona  cjucm  &  Filiunn,  ififum  bi  Sp  ritum  Sanctum. 
Non  eigo  conrurdcntes  Perfonas,  quia  ties  omnino  petT  nae  funti'.  Hit 
enim  giqners,  gcnitu  ,  &  '^  procedcn?.  Gignem  eft  Pater,  qui  gcnuit  Fi- 
lium;  Fiiius  e(l  genittts,  quem  genuit  Pater;  Spiritus  Sandus  efl  proce* 
dens,  quia  a  Patre  &  F^lio  pioccdit.  Pater  &  Fiiius  coseterni  (ibi  funr 
&  ccsequales;  &  coopcnnorts,  ficut  fcriptum  efl::  verbo  Domini  C<tli  fir- 
man  ^  funty  id  eft,  a  Filio  Dei  creati,  Spiritu  ^  oris  ejusy  omnis  virtus  eo- 
rum.  Ubi  fub  fingulari  numero,  Spiritus  ^  ejus  dicit  §,  [unitatcm  fub- 
ftanrias  dcitatis  oftendit;ubi  fub  plu'-.ili  numero,  omnis  virtus  eorum  dicit^,J 
Trinitatem  pcrfonarum  apertc  demonftrat,  quia  tres  unum  /unt,  ^  ur.um 
tres. 

Neqiie  fubjlantiam  fepar antes :  Ut  Anus  garrit,  qui  ficut  tres 
perfonas  efle  dicit,  lie  &  tres  fubftantias  efle  mentitur".  Filium  dicit 
minorcm  quam  Partem,  &  creatiiram  efle;  Spiritum  fanftum  adhuc 
minorem   quam   Filium ,    &  Patri   &   Filio    eum   eflt   Adminiftratorcm 

a  Qux  uncis  comprehcnfa  hie  iegere  c(l,  non  coniparent  in  Codice  Oxonieafi.  Verba 
fuiic  AlcHtni  (de  Trin.  1.  i.e.  3.  p.  7C9. )  in  quo  eadem  plane,  fimilique  online  inve- 
nias.  Sunt  porro  eadem,  uno  vocabulo  dcmpto,  apud  Tidgentium  (de  Fid.  ad  Pctrum. 
p.  SOX.)  ordine  ctiam  tantum  non  codem.  Verba  autcm  ilia  introduftoriai  {v'\z  Tri- 
nitatem in  perfonis ,  ttnitatem  in  fnbjlantia)  non  leguntur  in  Fiilgentio,  ncc  quidem  in 
Alcnino.  Interpolator  ipfe,  uti  videtur,  ex  proprio  ilia  penu  dcprompta  prxmiiit  cxtc- 
ris,  Connexionis  forte  aliqualis  confervands;  gratia. 

b  Tres  Pcrfonae  omnino  funt.  Murat. 

c  Deed  (^  in  Cod.  Oxon. 

d  Formati  Cod.  Oxon.  Vid.  Symb.  D/tw/j/;  di£ium  (ap\id  Hieronym-  Tom.  $.  p.  izi  ) 
•jndc  hjec  Nojler,  mutatis  mutandis,  deiunipdflc  videtur. 

e  Spiritus.  Cod.  Oxon. 

f  Leg.  Spiritu.  utcrque  vero  codex  habet  Spiritus. 

g  Dicitur.  Cod.  Murat. 

h  Lacunam  xuMuratorio  manifcftam  (quippc  cum  defint  ea  verba  unci?  indufa)  ex  Co- 
dire  Qxonienfi  fupplcvimus.  Scilicet,  vox  dicit  proxime  recurrcns  Librarii  oculos  (uti  fitj 
fefellit. 

i  Ita  clare  Cod.  Oxon.  Aliter  Muratorins  ex  vitiofo  codice ;  ijft/.i  trts  pn/onas  ejfe  dicit, 
u  (^  tres  fuhjlantias  ejfe  mentiiur,   Scnfus  impcditus,  aut  nullus. 

a  adfe- 


ATTENT>IX.  173 

a  adfcrit.  Non  ergo  SHhftmtiam  fiparantes,  quia  tots  tres  Perfonae  in  Sub- 
ftantia  Deirans  ^  unum  lunt. 

^lla  eft  enim  Terfona  Tatr'ts :  Quia  Pater  ingenitus  efl-,  eo 
G'lod  a  nullo  eft  geniru^.  Alia  perfbna  Filii^qnh  Filius  a  Patrc  fob 
eft  cgenitus.  Alia  Sj^iritus  Jm6fi,  quia  a  Patre  &  Filio  Spiritus  fan- 
ftub*^procedcns  eft. 

Sed  T^atris  &  Filii  &  Spiritus  fanEii  una  eft  T^ivinitas  : 
Id  ert,  Dcitas.  Aiqualts  Gloria :  id  eft,  Claritas.  Co£ternaMajeftas: 
Majeftas  gloria  eft,  Claritas,  five  Poteftas.* 

G)uaUs  Tater ,  talis  Filius,  talis  &  Spiritus  fanUus. 
y  el^'  '"  Dcitatc,&  Omnipotentia. 

Xncreatus  Tater,  increatus  Filius,  increatus  ^  Spiritus 
Jan^us.      Id  eft,  a  nuUo  creatus  f. 

Immenfus  Tater,  imnenfus  Filius,  immenfus  &  Spiritus 
fanBus  Non  eft  menfurabijis  in  fua  natura,  quia  inlocalis  eft,  6  incir» 
cumfcriptus,  ubique  totus,  ubique  praefens,  ubique  potens. 

jEteriiUs^ater^  aternus Filius,  aternus  &  Spiritus  fandius. 
Id  eft,  non  tres  jeterni,  fed  in  tribus  perfonis  unus  Deus  seternus,  qui  fine 
initio,  &  fine  fine  aeternus  permanet. 

Similiter  omnipotens  F*ater,  omnipotens  Filius,  omnipo- 
tens  &  Spiritus  fandius.  Omnipotens  dicitur,  eo  quod  omnia  po- 
teft,  &  omnium  obtinet  poteftatem^^.  Ergo,  fi  omnia  poteft,  quid  eft  quod 
non  poteft?  Hoc  non  poteft,  quod  Omnipotent!  non  competit  pofle  'c 
Falli  non  poteft  [quia  Veritas  eftj    infirmari  non  poteft,]    quia  Sanitas 

a  Et  Patn's  &  Filii  eum  Adminiftratorem  effe  adferit.  Cod.  Murat.  Conf.  BruKon. 

h  Divinitatis.  Cod,  Oxon. 

c  A  patre  eft  Colo.  Cod.  Oxon. 

^  Defunt  Spiritus  fanSiui  in  Cod^lvlurat.  quae  tamen  retinuimus,  turn  VidtCod  OxO' 
vienfis,  turn  quia  in  antecedent ibus  Pater,  &  'Filius  bis  ponuntur,  ficut  &  hie  Up.  fanSiusr. 

e  Cod.  oxonienfis.    legit  Claritaiis,  five  Poteftas. 

f  Cod,  Oxonienfis  legit  creati. 

g  Muratorii  exemplar  inferturn  habet  et ,  quod  delendum  efTe  cenfui,  cum  abfit  a 
codice  Oxon.  8c  otiofum  videatur. 

h  FortuTjatus,  in  fua  Expofit.  Symb.  Apoflolici,  hsc  hibetj  Omnipotens  viro  dicitur,  ec 
quod  omnia  fojjit,  ^  omnium  .ohtitiet  Totentatum.  cd.  Bafil.  obtineat  pctejintew.  ed.  Lugdr 
Praeluferat  KuffintiSy  in  Symbolum. 

i  S.  Bri.no,  hunc  opinor  locum  prx  ocuh's  Inbens,  his  verbis  utitur:  Frgo,  fi 
omnia  potefi ,  quid  eft  quod  non  poteft'.  Hoc  non  poteft,  quod  non  convtnit  ommpotent; 
pa/fe.    Brun,  ia  Symb.  Athanaf, 

eft. 


A 


,74  AT  T  E  NT>  I  X. 

e(l  »;  mori  non  poteft,  quia  immortalis  vita  eft;  finiri  non  poteft,  quia 
infinitus  &  perennis  eft. 

Itay  T>eus  'Pater,  T>eus  Fil'ius,  "Dcus  &  Spiri*us  fauciiis. 
[  Dcus  nomen  etl  Poceflaris,  non  Propnetaii^.]  Fropnum  iiouien  eft 
Vix.n^Puur\  &  proprium  nomen  eft  <^  Filii  />//«;,  &:  propr  um  nomen  eft 
Spiritus  fanfti  Spiritas  jantius, 

Ita,  'Dominus  'Pater,  'Dominus  F'dius,  T>ominus  (^  Spi- 
ritus fandfus.  Dominus  dicitur,  eo  quod  dcmineiur  creature  cun- 
d:aj,  vel  quod  creatuia  omnis  dominatui  ejus  deferviat*^. 

^iia  ficiit  fingillatim  (id  eft,  fi.uc  d.ftindirr. e)  nnamquam- 
que  Terjnnam  ^  ^Deum  ^  T)ominum  confiteri  Lhrifti- 
ana  ueritate  compellimur.  Quia  fi  me  interrogaveris  quid  firs 
Parer,  ego  relpmdebo;  Deus,  &  Dominu<:.  Similiter,  fi  me  interrogave- 
ris ^  quid  fit  '  Filius  ego  dicam;  Deus,  &  Dominus.  Et  fi  dicis  ^^  quid 
eft  Spiritus  fandusf  Ego  dico^j  Deus,  &  Dominus.  Et  in  his  tribus 
Perfonis,  non  tres  Deos,  nee  tres  Domino';,  fed  in  ™his  tribus,  ficut  jam 
fupra  didum  eft,  "  unum  Dcum,  &  unum  Dominum  confiteor. 

IJnus  ergo  'Pater,  fion  tres  T^atres :  Id  eft,  quia  «  Pater  Tem- 
per Pater,  nee  allquando  Filius.  ^nus  Flius,  llOtl  tres  Filii :  Id  eft,  quia 
Fjlius  fcmper  Filius,  ncc  aliquando  Pater.  IJnus  Spiritus fati6f US ^  non 

a  Miiratorins  fcntentiam  mancnm,  vitiatamquc  exhibet:  TM  non  poteft,  quia  Sancitu 
eft;  omifTis  intermediis.  Scilicet,  vocabulum  proxime  repetitum  defcribentis  oculum  de« 
liillt;  Et  ne  nullus  indc  ciiceretur  fenfus,  pro  'Stmitai  i'ubftitutuni  eft  Sanctus.  H^c  porro 
fibimet  adoptavit  S.  Bruno,  pauculis  mutatis ,  vel  interjeilis,  ad  hunc  moduni:  FalU 
r.on  pott  ft,  (juia  Veritas  &  Sapientia'  eft;  sgrotari  ant  infirmari  non  poteft,  quia  Hanitai  efi } 
mori  non  poteft,  quia  immortalis  eft;  finiri  ncn  poteft    quia  infinitus  ^  perennis  eft. 

h  Dcefl:  hxcClaiifula  in  CoJice  Murator:  Sed  confer  Syinbolum  Damafi  diftum,  quod 
Gregorii  Boetici  creditur,  apud  Auguft,  Tom.  5.  p.  3S7.  Append,  item  apud  Hieronym. 
Tom.  f.  p.  I  XI. 

c  Dccft  eft.  Murator.   ccnf.  Br«w. 

d  Ita  Codex  Muratcrii:  paulo  alirer  Cod.  Oxonienfis;  mens  eadem.  Dominus  dicitur  eo 
quod  ovinia  Dominat,  ^  omnium  eft  Dominus  Dominatcr  Dominat,  pro  Deminatur,  &  cum 
Accufativo,  ex  vitiita  iiiferiorrs  xvi  Latinitatc,  vel  ex  Srribae  imperitia. 

e  DfttnHum.  O.\on.  diftinile.   Miirat.  f  Deeft  c^.  Cod.  Murator. 

g  ^uut  eft.  Murator.  Eandem  fcntentiam  cxprefTit  S.  £r;<»^,  his  verbis  i  ^uia/i  me  in- 
terrogaveris quid  eft  Pater,   ego  refpondeo ;  Deus,  ^  Dominus. 

h   F.t  fi  mc  rogaveris.   Cod.  Oxon- 

i  Eft.  Murator.  Locum  fic  exhibet  S.  Bruno;  Similiter,  fi  interrogaveris  quid  eft  Filius, 
ego  duo,  Deus  ^  Dominus, 

k   Dicas.  Murator. 

1  Dicam.  Murator.  Apud  Brunonem  fic  legitur;  Et  fi  dicis,  quid  eft  Spiritus  fanStus? 
Ego  refpondeo;  Deus,  (^  Dommus.  m  Deeft  tn.  Oxon. 

n  Supra  dixi.  Cod.  Oxon.   Sed  Brunonis  Icdlio  Mur%icrii  Icdiionem  confirmat. 

o  Codfx  Oxon  pro  quia  habct  qui,  in  hoc  loco,  &  in  duobus  proxime  fcquentibus. 
Utfuralibet  eiegcris,  eodcra  fere  res  redit. 

tres 


A  T  T  E  N  "D  I  X.  17s 

tresSpiritus  fanBi:  Id  eft,  quia  Spfritus  fandlus  Temper  eft  ^Spiritu 
(anctus,  necaliquandoFilius,  aut  P.ner.  H^c  t^i  proprietas  Peifonarum. 

Et  In  hac  Trmitate  nihil  pnus,  ant  pfterius.  Quia  H- 
cut  nunquam  Filius  fine  Patr.^  fie  nunquam  fuit  Pater  fine  Filio,  ^\z  & 
nunquam  fuit  Pater  &  Filius  fine  Spiricu  Sanao^.  Co3Etcrna  ergo  Tri- 
nitas,  ^  infepar^bilis  unitas   ^^^'\^  initio  &   fine  finec. 

Nihil  majllS,  ant  minus.  ^qualituem  Perfonarum  dicit,  quia' 
<^Trmit3S  «qualis  eft,  &  una  ^  Deltas,  Apoftolo  docente  f^,  &  dicente: 
Ftr  eny  qfi<eja^ajmt,  irttelle^a  conjpicinmur ;  &  per  Creaturam  Creator  in- 
teliigitur,  :ecundum  has  comparationes,  &  alias  quamplures.  Sol,  Candor,  &: 
Calor,  &  tria  font  vocabula,  &  tria  unumS.  Quod  candet,  hoc  calec^' 
&  quod  caLt,  hoc  candet:  Tria  haec  vocabula  res  una  efte  dignofcitur^. 
lea  »  Pater  &  Filius  &  Spiritus  fanctus,  tres  Perfona?,  in  Deitare  Subftan- 
tiae  ^  unum  funt;  &  individua  unitas  rede  creditur.  Item  de  rerrenis? 
vena,  Fons,  Fluvius,  tria  funt  ^  vocabula,  &  rria  unum "^  in  fua  natura. 
Ita  trium  Perfonarum,  Patris  &  Filii  ^  Spiritus  fandti,  Subftantia  & 
Deltas  unum  eft  "  . 

EJi  ergo  Fides  reEia,  nt  credamus  &  confiteamuVy  quia 
^om'tnus  nofter  Jefus  Chriftus °.  Jefus  hebrafce,  latine  Salvator 
dicitur.     [Chriftus  grsece,  latine  undus  vocatur.     Jefus  ergo  diciturPj 

a  In  Cod.  Oxon.  deeft  eft. 

b  Paulo  aliter  huncce  locum  expreflit  au£tor  Sermonise  inter  ^Augufiini  opera  fAppendi 
Tom.  6-  p.  z8i.}  ^0ia  ficut  nunquam  pater  fine  Filio,  nee  Filius  fine  Patre^  fie  ^  nun- 
quam fuit  pater,  ^  Filius  fine  Spiritu  SanBo.  Sed  nihil  mutandum  contra  Fidem  Exem- 
plarium. 

c  In  Appendice  praediAa,  fie  legitur :  Coiterna  ergo  eft  SanBa  Trinitas  8cc. 

d  San<Sa  Triniras.  Append. 

e  Una  eft  Deitas.  Append,  una  Deitatis.  oxon.  male. 

f  In  Cod.  oxonienfi.  defunt  ilia  doeente  et.  Sed  Append*  he&ionem  Mur  at  or  it  tuetur,a^© 
tamen  verborum  ordinei    dicente,  atque  docente. 

g  Ita  Muratorius  cum  Appendice  praedidt.    Aliter  MS  oxon.  viz.  tria  funt  nomingh  f^rfs- 
tma.  quae  eodem  recidunt. 

h  In  Appendice  fie  fe  habent  j  trin  hue  'vocabula  res  una  cognofcitur. 

iy£t  pofi  ita  Oxon.  \. 

k  Phrafis  duriufcula;  Deitate  SubftantiA,  ^ro'Divinitate  Subftantii,  fi  tamen  ita  res  ha* 
beat.  At  locus  hie  corruptus  eft  fortafle,  licet  eandem  leitionem  Codex  uterque  prxferatc 
Appendix  oniittit  iWuA  Subftantia.  Delendum  forfan  eft  Subftanti*,  vel  legendum,  in  Deita- 
tis Subftantia,  aut  firaile  quid.  Subftantia,  &  Deitas  conjundlim  leguntur  paulo  infra*' 
quodquidem  intuens,  nollem  Subftantia  hoc  loco  expungerej  at  corrigendum  ccnfeo. 

1  Appendix  legit  h^c,  non  funt.    Oxon.  tria  itemque  funt. 

m  Oxonienfis,  res  una.    Append,  cum  Muratorio,  unum^ 

n  Ita  Murat.  &  Append.  Oxonienfis  legit,  Subftantia,  Deitas  una  eft. 

o  Oxonienfis  adjicit,  Dei  Filius  ^  Homo  eft.  ineptc  hoc  loco,  quod  ex  fequcntibus-' 
patebit. 

p  Muratorii  Codex  omittit  verba  ilia  intermedia,  uncis  inclufa.  Scilicet,  illud  dUithr  proo 
Kime  repetitum  Amanuenfi  hie  itcrum  fraudi  fuit. 


A 


I'jd 


.") 


ATTEWDIX, 

eo  quod  falvat  Populura;  Cliriftuj,  eo  quod  Spiritu  fanSo  divinitus  fit* 
delibutus,  ficut  in  ipli  $  Chrilti  ^  Pcrfona  LfaiAi  ait;  S^iritHs  Dommi  fw 
per  mcy  tropter  cjuod  umxU  ^/Cy  &c.  Ita  &  PialmilU  de  Chr.lto  D amino 
dicit,  ^   ti'ixit  te  Deusy  Deus  trntSt  oleo  Utitia  prz  Conjortthus  tnii. 

i)ei  FtL'tui  ,  IDeus  ^ariter  ^  homo  ejl.  Fmu  a  Felicitate 
Pareiitum  dicicur:  Homo  ab  Immo  dicnuri  id  eR,  de  humo  ^  fa- 
ftus  ell. 

I^eus  ejl  ^  ex  fubjlantta  Tatr'ts  ante  facula  genitus. 
Id  clt,  Dcus  de  Dco,  lumen  dc  luminc,  (plendor  dc  fplendore,  loitisdc 
tortij  villus  de  v.rcur^-,  vita  dc  vica,  dtt^niras  de  aternitate:  Per  om- 
nia, idem  ^  quod  pac^r  in  divini  lujftaiuia  hoc  eft  &  8  Fihus.  DwUS  e- 
nim  ''  Pater  Deum  Fliuin  gcnuit,  non  voluncate,  neque  necefTitate,  fed 
natura.  Ncc  quaeratur  qaomodo  gcnuit  Filium  '  ,  quod  &  Angcli  ne- 
kiunt,  Prophetis  eft  incognitum  :  unde  ^  eximius  Propheta  Efaias  dicit ; 
qenerationem  ejHS  qais  enarrabit  ?  Ac  Ci  diccret,  ^  Angelorum  niiUus,  Pro- 
phetarum  nemo"^.  Nee  inenarrabilis,  &  inaellimabilis  Deus"  a  lervulis  fuis 
difcuticndus  eft,  fed  tideliter  credendu^,  °  &  pariter  dil:gendus. 

Et  homo  P  ex  fubftant'ia  matris,  in  faculo  natus.  Pei 
Filius,  Verbum  Patns,  s  Caio  faflum.  '  Non  quod  Divinitas  mutaftet 
deitatem,  ied  adfumpfit  humanitatem.  Hoc  eft,  Verbum  Caro  fa(5lum  eft, 
ex  utero  Virginis  veiam  humanam  carnem  traxit.  Et  de  utero  virginali  verus 
Homo,  ficut  &  verus  Deus,  eft  in  faeculo  narus,  falva  virginitatis  gratia; 
*  quia  mater,  quae  genuit,Virgo  j^nte  partum,&  Virgo  poftpartum  permanfit '. 

a  Divinitus  fit  defunt  in  Cod.  Oxoii. 

b  Deed  Chrifii.  Marator. 

c  Oxonienlis  bretriter,  Item  in'Pfalmo,  ttnxit  &c.  Notandum  porro,  quod  quaedam  habet 
Fortttnatus  nofter,  in  Commentario  Ibo  in  Symbol.  Apoftol  hilce  jam  proxime  defcriptis 
perquam  fimilia    Confer  etiam  Kti^^n.  in  Symbol,  inter  Oper-  Hteronym.  (Tom.  5.  p.  iji.) 

d  De  Humo  Terra.  Murator. 

€  Non  habetur  eji  in  Murat. 

f  Pro  idem,  id  eft,  Marator. 

0  Dccft  et  Cod.  Oxon.  His  quoque  gemina  fere  habes  in  Ex^fit.  in  Symbol  Apojiolicum. 
h  Deeft  en'im  Cod.  Oxon.  confer.  Symb.  Damafi  di£tum. 

i  ^omodo  gemtus  fit,  quod  Angelt—  Oxon.  At  Muratorii  lediioni  aftipulatur  Appendix 
ad  Auguftin.  (Tom.  6.  p.  279.)  &  Forttinatus  ipfe,  Expof.  m  Symb.  Apoftol. 
k  Undc  O"  ifdcm.  Cod.  Murat.  conf.  F<?r;/<w/»;.  in  Symb.  Apoftolicum 

1  Muratorius  lubct  dixiffet. 

m  Angelorum  nemo,   Vrophetarum  ntdlus.  Cod.  Oxon.       n  Dcefl  Dcus.  Oxon. 

o  Confer.  Eortunat.  in  Symb.  Apoftol.  & -4/>/ie»</.  apud  Auguft.  p.  xy^.  &  Ku^n.  Symb. 

p  Homo  eft.  Cod.  Oxon. 

q  Dei  Filtus,  verbum  Caro.  Murat.  Dei  Filius  verba  Patris  Caro.  Cod  Oxon.  Ex  utnfque 
veram,  opinor,  ledionem  rcftituimus. 

r  Et  non.  Cod.  Murator.  cxpunximus  illud  e^  Fide  Codicis  Oxon. 

s  falva    virginitatis  gratia,   dellmt  in  Cod.  Oxonienfi. 

t  Ita  Cod,  Oxon.  Muratorius,  quia  muter  ginuit,  (^  virgo  manfh  ante  fartum,  (^  fofi 
partim^  ^^ 


A'PTEKT>IX,  177 

In  faculo.  Id  efl,  in  iflp  fexto  miliario,  in  quo  nunc  fumus,  [/?- 
cuU  enim  generatiombus  conflmt,  &  inde  fecula,  quod  fequamm;  abemtibm 
emm  dtis,  alia  fnccedunt  ^  .]  "  Deus  &:  h',mo  Chriftus  Jefus,  unxis 
«'  Dei  Filius  &  ipfe  Virginis  Filius.  Quia  dam  Deitas  in  utero  Vir- 
<^  ginis  humanitatera  adfumpfit,  &  cum  ea  per  Portam  Virginis  in- 
«  tegrarr,  &:  illaefam,  nafcendo  mundum  ingicflu'?  eft  virginis  Filius ;  & 
«'  Hominem  (leg.  Homo)  quern  adlumHt,  id  (leg,  id^m)  eft  Dei  Fili- 
««  um  (leg.  Filius)  ficut  jam  Tnpra  diximus;  -5:  Deicas  &  Humaniras  in 
"  Chrifto,    &  Dei  Patris  pariter  &  Virginis  Matris  Filius. 

Terfehus  'Deus,  perfctius  Homo.  Id  eft,  verus  Deus,  &  ve- 
rus  Homo. ^£ a:  anima ratlonali :  &  non  ut  A^oiUnarh^  HaEreticus  dixit 
primum,  quafi  Deitas  pro  anima  fuiflet  in  Carne  Chrifts ;  poftea,  cum  per 
evangelicam  aufloritatem  fuiflet  ^  convit'tus,  dixit:  Habnit  c^mdem  ammam 
am  vivificavit  corpusy  fed  non  rationalem.  ^  E  contrario,  dicit  qui  Catho- 
lice  fentiti  ex  anima  rationali  dr  humana  carne  fuhfijlem  ^  :  id  eft,  plenus 
homo,  atque  perfe(5lus. 

jEqualis  Tatri  fecundum  T>ivinitatem ;  minor  Tatre  fe- 
cundum  humanitatem.  Id  eft,  fecundum  formam  fervi  quam  adfu- 
mere  dignatus  eft. 

^i  licet  ^T)etis  Jit  ^  homot  non  duo  tamen,  fed  tinus  eft 
Chriftus.  Id  eft,  dux  fubftantiae  in  Chrifto,  Deltas  &  Humanitas,  non 
duas  perfonsE,  fed  una  eft  perfona  ^  . 

^nus  autem,  non  converfione  divinitatis  in  Carnem^^,  fed 
adfumftione  Humanitatis  in  Deum'^.  Id  eft:  non  quod  Diviniras, 

a  Non  comparent  in  Codice  Oxonienfi.  Verba  funt  Jfidor'u  Qv.g,  \.  j-,  c.  38. 
QusB  fequuntur  proxime,  Beus  ^  Homo  &c.  ufque  ad  Mutns  'Filtus ,  defunt  omnia  in 
Codice  Muratorii:  ex  Oxonienfi  folo  defcripta  dedimus.  Videntur  mihi  Vortunati  re  vera 
efle,  fed  Librarii  culpa  (ut  alia  multa)  mirum  in  modum  vitiata;  quae  quidem  ex  Ccnje. 
Hunt  aliquatenus  corrigere  volui,  ut  Syntaxis  falrem  fibi  ccnftet,  donee  cerriora,  &  meliora 
ex  Codicibus(ri  forte  fuperfint  aliqui)  eruantur.  CseteruvotUt  Fortunato  nodro  hxc  afcribam, 
illud  fuadet  maxime,  quod  in  Expofitione  fua  in  Symholum  Apojlolicum  gemina  fere  habet 
ae  ?ortii  virginis,  eiidemque  ibi  nonnullis  Phrafibus  utitur  quibus  &  hie  ufus  eft.  Confer 
Symbolum  Ruffini,  a  Quo  folenne  eft  Nojlro  Cquippe  qui  &  ipfe  Aquileix  olim  Dodlrina 
Chriftiana  initiatus  fuerat )  turn  verba,  turn  fententia;  mutuari. 

b  Deeft  hsc  Claufula  in  CoJ,  Oxon.  ob  vocabulum  repetitum. 

c  Taulinaris  Cod.  Oxon.   Le6tio  nata  ex  Sermone  fimplici  &  plebeio. 

d  Fuit.  Cod.  Oxon. 

c  Et  e  contrario  ifie  dicit.  Murat.  deleviraus  ilia  et,  atque  ifie,  quse  fententiam  turbant, 
fide  Codicis  Oxonienfis. 

f  Subftfiit.  Cod.  Oxon.  g  certe,  loco  r»  licet.  CoJ.  Oxoa. 

h  Eft  Perfona  defunt  in  Cod.  Oxon. 

i  Cod.  Oxonienfis  habet  Carne,  &  Dee:  errore,  uti  credo,  pervetufto,  multifque  8c  an- 
tiquiffimis  exemplaribus  communi.  Quod  fi  verbis  in  Commentario  imnediatefequentibus 
(ex  Muratorii  leftione)  fteterimus,  Fortttnatut  ipfe  nobis  Auftor  erit ,  ut  5c  Deum,  &c 
Carnem,  pro  genuina  leftione  habeamus. 

Z  quOE 


,7g  A  T  "P  E  N  ^  I  X. 

quae  immutabilis  eft,  fit  converfa  in  Carncm  *  i  fed  .ideo  unus,  eo  quod 
Humaniiarem  adfumfit,capit''efrc  quod  ncn  ^  crat,  &:non  amifit  quoderat; 
cccpit  efle  Homo  '^  quod  antca  non  fuerat,  non  amifit  Dcitatem  qua  in- 
commutab;lis  in  xtcrnum   perm-inet  "=. 

IJnus cmn'ino,  non  confnfione  fnbPantlaifedunitate T^erfona, 
Id  eft  ;  Divinitas  incmmu'abilis  ^  cum  Hominc,  quern  adfumere  digna- 
ta  S  eft,  (icut  (cript'jm  eft;  verbum  tmim^  Domine,  in  sternum  permanet. 
Id  eft,  Divinitas  cum  Huma-nitate  ;  ut  dixiirus  duas  fubftantifis  unain 
pcrfonam  '^  eftc  in  Clinfto  :  ut  ficut  ante  adfumptioncm  [carnis,  sterna 
fuit  Trinitas,  ira  poft  adfumptionera  '  ]  humanae  naturje,  vera  maneat 
Trinitasj  ne  propter  adfumprionem  humanns  Carnis  dicatur  effe  quater- 
nitas,  quod  abht  a  Fidel ium  cordibus,  vtl  fcnlibus,dici,  aut  cogiran,  cum, 
ita  ^  ut  fupradi>5lum  eft,  &  Unitas  inTiinitate,  &  Trinitas  in  Uniiate 
veneranda  fit. 

Nam  ficut  Jln'ima  rattonalis,  ^  Caro  unus  eft  Homo ;  it  a 
^eus,  ^  Homo  unus  eft  Chriftus.  EtfiDeus',  Dei  Filius,  no- 
ftiam  lutcam  &  mortalem  carnem,  noftrae  Rcdemptionis  conditio- 
nem  ■"  adfumpferit,  fe  tamcn  nullatenus  "  inquinavit,  neque  naturam 
Deitatis  mutavir.  Quia  i\  So),  aut  Ignis  aliquid  immundum  tetigc- 
rit,  quod  tangit  purgat,  &  fe  nullatenus  coinquinat :  ita  Dcitas  Sarcinam 
quoque  °  noftrae  Humanitatis  adfumfit,  fe  ncquaquam  coinquinavit,  fed 

a    "Siui  immutabilis  ^  inconxeictihilii  ejl,  Caro  j  fed  &c.  Cod.  Oxon. 

b  l/icipit.  Cod.  Oxon. 

c  Occft  r.on.  Cod.  Marat,  m^le. 
■  d  Deed  Homo  in  Cod-  Oxon.  pcrpenm.  ircm,  inciptt,  pro  cxpit. 

e  Mura'orius  legit,  qujn  iwcotnmut^tits  in  sterniun  permanet:  Cod.  Oxorvienfis.  qu4 
imrriHtabilis  in  itsrnum  permanfit.  Et  utrifque  tertiam  ledionem  confecimus ;  quae,  c- 
pinor,  ceteris  8c  vcrxuftior  eft,  &  apu'or. 

f  ImjTintabtlii.  Cod.  Oxon. 

q  iiignatus.  Cod.  Oxon, 

h  eetfonam  pcrperam  otntttit  Cod.  Oxonienfis. 

i  Delunr  in  Codice  Oxquicnli :  pricermina  kilicet  fcftiuantis  Librarii  incuria,  ob  vo- 
CCTi  iteratam. 

k  ?xo  cum  Hi,  habet  Cod.  Oxon.  nifi  ita. 

i   Murator.  Cod.  omittic  Deus. 

rn  Cod.  Oy.o.n\cnih, K.^ftriRedeinptionis  Conditionis adfumpfit .  Ncfcio  an  melius  Muratorios  -, 
acfiram  iute.vn,  (^  mortalem  Camem  nr.Jlrji  Conditionii  adfumferit.  Scd  Icvi  muratione,  reftc 
in  cdunt  on-.nia.    Cotiditio,  aped  Scriptorcs  quinti  Sc  fexti  Ssculi,  eft  fervile  onu;;,  opufvc. 

n  Cod.  Oxon.  lc"it  fe  uulUtenus.  Murator:  Sed  tamen  fe  nulUttnus.  Nofter  Tero  in 
Exbofit.  in  Symb.  Apofiol.  in  llmili  cnufi,  h.ic  utitur  I^hrali,  fe  tamen  non  inquinat* 

o  Oxonienfis  habct,  Dsjtai  farcinatffjue  nojlre.  /lum-viitatti  adfump/it,,  fe  nequaquam  8cc, 
Muratorius  hoc  rtio  lo  ;  Deitas  farciaam,  quam  ex  nojlra  HumAntati  adlumpjlt,  ncquaquam 
coinquinavit.  Lcftio  trigida  prorfus,  £c  incpta.  fuvat  hue  tonfcrre  qua:  Fortunatus  nofter 
a<l  Symb.  ApolK  in  c.indcm  fentcntiam  brevirer  di(5tavic. 

"  Quod  vero  Deus  MajcftitiJ  dc  MariA  in  Carnc  natus  eft,  non  eft  fordidatus  nafccndo 
"  dc  viii^inc,  qui  non  twic  pollutu.s  homijicm  condens  de  pulvcrc.  Denique  fol,  aut  Igflij, 
">  fi  lutum  inf£Jciat,  quod  tetigcrit  pu.rgat,  &  fc  taaica  non  inquioat.  conf.  Rw^».  Symb. 

p.  13^.  ,  noftram 


iieflraffi  h^Uta*n  carnis,  ^  qUahi  adfumpficpurgavit,  &  a  maculis,&  for- 
dibus  peccatorum,  ac  vitiorum  expiavit  :  (icut  Efaias  aitj  ;>^  mfirmttates 
hoflras  accepit,  ^  iegrotat.c.us  pmavit.  Ad  hoc  fecundum  humanita- 
tern  natuseft,  ut  infirmitates  noftras  acciperet,  &  sgrotanones  portaret : 
fi6n  quod  ipfe  infirmitates,  vel  aegrotationes  in  fe  babcrct,  quia  Salus 
fiiutidi  feft ;  fed  ut  eis  a  nobis  toll-ret,  dum  fn^  facrae  pafiionis  Gratia, 
&:  Sacramento b,  Chirographo  aderitbto ,  Redemptionem  pariter  &Sa!u" 
tern  aftimariim  nobis  condonaret 

^«i  /afus  eft  pro  falute  noftta.  Id  eH,  fecundum  id  quod 
patr^otliit:  quod  feft,  fecundum  humanam  naiurarfij  nam  fecundum  Di- 
rinitat€rti,  Dei  Pilius  impaflibilis  eft. 

.  ^efcendit  ad  Inferos''.  Ut  ^  Protoplaftum  Adam  s  &•'  Patriar- 
chas,  &  Prophetas,  &  omnes  juRos,  qui  pro  Originali  peccato  ibideoi 
dednebsmtfr,  libei'atet;  &  de  ^  vinculis  ipfius  s  peccati  abfolutos,  de  ca- 
dem  caprivitate^  &  ^  infernali  '  loco,  fuo  fanguine  redemptos,  ad  fuper^- 
nam  patriam*  &  ad  perpetu^e  vitge  gaudia  revocaret.  Rerqui,  *^  qui  fupra 
Originale  peccatum  i  principaliacrimina  nicommiferunt,  ut  adferit  Scnptu- 
fa,  in  paenali  Tartaro  remanferunt:  ficut  in  perfona  Chrifti  didum  eft  per 
Prophetim;  Ero  mors  ma,  O  Mors;  id  eft,  morte  fua  Chriftus  humani 
oeneris  inimicam  Mortem  interfecit,  &  vitam  dedit.  Era  morfus  turn,  mfern'e, 
Partim  "  momordit  infernum,  pro  Parte  eorum  quosliberavit :  Partem  re- 
liquit,  pro  Parte  eorum  qui  pro  principalibus  criminibus  in  Tormenftis 
remanferunt. 

Surrexit  a  mortuis  primogenitus  mortuorura:    Et  alibi  Apo- 

ftolus  dicit  \  Ipfe  primogenitus  ex  mnltis  fratribus.     Id  eft,  primus  a  mor- 
tuis refurrexit.  Et  multa  corpora  °  San^ornm  dormientium  mm  eofurrexermtt 

a  NoflrA  nutuYA  Carnem.  Murat.  u    r    r      r^ 

b  Murafofius  legit;  dum  fu&  facrt  paJJIonis  Gratiam,  &  Sacratmnta:  nullo  leniu.    Ox- 

oienfis,  dum  fui  [»cr&  pajjionis  gratis  (pro  gratia)  ac  Sacramento. 

c  M  inferna.  Cod.  Oxon.  quod  8c  inter  variantes  Symboli  Ledliones  fupra  notatum  o- 

portuit.     Q..  annon  vetuftiflima  hscc  fuerit  kaio  in  Symbolo  Athanafiano,  ficut  in  Apo-. 

iSplice  ?  \^  ^ 

d  ^i,  loco  r5  ut.  Cod.  Oxon.  At  Sermo  de  Symbolo,  in  Append,  ad  Augujl.  (Tom. 
6,  p.  2^1.)  legit,  cum  Muratorio,  ut. 

e  Adam  frofoplajlum.    Append. 

f  tt  ut  de.  Append. 

g  Ipfius  dcefl:   Append. 

h  Deeft  et  Cod.  Oxoii. 

i  Inferni.  Append. 

k  Muratorius  habet  vera,  .pod  Relicjui.  Oxon.  non  agnofcit,  nee  Append. 

1  Ita  legitur  in  Appendice.  Oxonienfis, ///fr^  Originale  peccato:    Muratorius, 
fitpra  Originali  peccato. 

m  Principalem  culpam.  Append. 

n  Muratorius,  &  Oxonienlis,  in  utroque  loco,  Partem:   Appendix,  in  utroque,  Partim. 
Media  mihi  Icdio  maxime  arridet. 

o  Deeft  corpora  in  Cod.  Oxon, 

Z    2  ficut 


38o  j^TTENDlX. 

ficut  evangclica  auifloritas  >dicit:  Sed  ipje^  qui  Caput  efly  prtus,  deiade  qtu 
*>  Membra  funt  conttnuo. 

Poflea  afcendit  ad  Calos  :  ficut  Pfalmifla  ait;  afcendit  <^  in  ahum, 
captiva?n  dtixit  captivitaiem,  id  ert",  humanam  naturam,  quae  prius  Tub 
pcccato  venundatafuit,  &  captivataj  camque  redemptam  captivam  '^  duxit 
in  cxlcftem  altitudinen)  ,•  ik.  ad  cfleftis  Patriae'-"  Regnum  fcmpiternum, 
ubi   antea  non  fucrat,  earn  ^  collocavir,  in  gloriam  fempitcrnam. 

Sedet  ad  dexter  am  l^atr'is  :  Id  efl: ,  Profperitatem  paternani, 
&  in  s  CO  Honr.rc,  quod  ^  Deus  eft. 

Inde  veuturus  '^  judicare  vivos  ^  morttios.  Vivos  dicit  cos 
q-uos  tunc  advenrus  Dominicus  in  corpore  viventcs  invencrit;  [&  mor- 
tuos,  jJHi  ante  fcpultos.  Et  aliter  dicit^,]  \iw os  jujios,  &  monuos  pec- 
catores.  1 

j^d  cujus  adventum  omnes  homines  refurgere  habent  cum 
corporibus  fnis\  &  reddituri  funt  de  faBts  fropri'is  ratio- 
nem :  Et  qui  bona  egertmt,  ibunt  in  vitam  aternam ;  qui 
vera  mala,  in  ignem  aterniim.  Hac  eft  Fides  Catholica,quam 
ttiji  qtiifqne  fideliter ,  firmiterque  crediderit ,  falviis  effe 
non  ^oterit. 

a  In  ev angelica  Autiurit ate.  Cod.  Oxon. 

b  ^u&  immbra.  Cod.  Oxon. 

c   afctndms.    Murator. 

d  Conf.  Tradlatum  Anonynii  apud  Hitronym.  Tom.  f.  p.  1 30.  8c  apud  Attguflin, 
Tom.  8.  p.  69.  ylppend. 

e   Cdejlem  Patriam.  Cod.  Oxen., 

i  Et  pro  earn.  Mjrator. 

g  in  dccft.  Cod.  Oxon. 

h  Malic  m  n;ip,  C\  per  Codices  liccret;  fed  &  quo  J,  advcrbialitcr  hie  pofitum  pro  quia, 
fenfum  non  incoromo  ium  prae  fe  fcrre  videtur. 

i    vcnturus  e/l.  Murator. 

k  Quantum  hie  uncis  includitur,  omittit  Codex  Oxonienfis.  Delufus  efl  fortcan  Libra- 
riu5  per  binas  literulas  ic  bis  pofitas:  Vel,  fimili  errorc  dcceptus,  integram  lineam  pnetc- 
ricrit,  dum  in  proximc  f.quentem  oculos  conjecerat. 

1  Oper33  prcrium  cd  pauca  hie  fubjicere,  quae  Nojier  habet  in  expofitione  fua 
in  S-jmb.  Apoflolicum.  "  judicaturus  vivos,  8c  tnortucs.  Aliqui  dicunt  vivos,  juftosj  mor- 
"  tuos  vcro  injuftos;  aut  certe,  vivos,  quos  in  corpore  invenerit  advenru5  Dominicus, 
•'  5c  mortuos,  jam  fcpultos.  Nos  ramcn  intcll'gimus  vivos  &  mcjrtuos,  hoc  cfl  animas 
■  &  corpora' pariter  juJicanda.  Confer.  Ruffin.  Symb.  p.  140.  &  Method,  apud  Fh$t, 
<iod.  234,  p.  931. 


.  ^ 


A  N 


Of    authors. 


isr 


INDEX 


c. 


ABBo,  or  Albo  ('Floriacenfis)  2j.  iB.  141. 
Abelard.  38.  137-  »43' 
>Vdalbertus   12> 
Adrian  I.  (Pope)  f2.  83. 
^neas  ParinenHs  f.  it. 
Agobardus   10. 
Alcuinus   171.  lyz. 
Alexander  (of  Halesj  16,  i/i.  164. 
Arexander  (  Natalis)  iz.  47.  82.  120. 
Allatius  (Leoj  6.  25.  97. 
Alftedius    81, 

Ambrofe  CSt-^  75-.  1O2.  109,  llo.   129,  130. 
Amerbachius.  66. 
Anaftafius  I.  (Pope)  li-  123. 
Anaftafius    II.  (Pope)   loy. 
Anaftafius  (Antioch.)  57. 
Anfcharius    10.   83.  84. 
Anthelmius  lo.  49- i'S-  1 17 
Aquinas  27.  88.  ii8- 
Athanafius  (Alex.)  lol. 
Athanafius  (of  Sptre)  7. 
Auguftinus  (Stus)  if.  fg.  102. 
112.   iif. — 119.  126. — 133 
Avitus  Viennenfis.  79.  1  if. 
Autun  (Council  of ^  if.  78.  114. 


168. 


118. 


104..   I06. 
.  164',  168. 


U!. 


B. 


V. 


Bi) I FFius  (Lazarus)  jt.  74  JS. 
Baldenfal  (William)  28. 
Baluxius  18. 
Baronius  7,  lo.  8ii  91. 
Beleth  2f. 

Berno  (Augienfis)  62. 
Beveridge  9. 
Bingham    iz.  18. 

Bona  (Card.)  6.  28.  f  7.  60.  80.  86.  87.  90. 
Bruno  (Bp.  ot  Wurtzb.)  34,  163.  173. 
Brunfwick  (Abbot)  24. 
Bryling  (Nicol.)  73.  7f. 


CAB  ASSUTIUS.    9>  18. 
Caffarius  (of  Aries)  115. 
Calamy  (Dr.)  iff. 
Caleca  (Manuel)  28.  70*  90. 
Calvifius  81. 
Cantilupe  (Walter^  26, 
Caflian  (John)  113. 
Cave  (Dr.)  8.  12. 
Cazanovius   92. 
ChalccdoQ  (Council)  lof. 
Charles  the  Great.  52.  78.  8ji  84>  8f. 
Chillingworth   if 3. 
Clarke  (Dr.j  12.  ifo. 
Claudianus  Mamertus   |05. 
Cochleus  (Joh.)  36. 
Le  Coint  p.  18. 

CombeBs    28.  29.  60.  9I.  103.124. 
Comber  (Dr.)  8-  47. 
Covel  (Dr.)  7. 
Cyparifliota  (Johannes)  29.  74; 


D. 


Danhawerus   157. 
Dionyfius  (MikiT^j^. 
Dodwell  80. 
Dupin  9.  18. 
Durants  (William)  27. 


E. 


EPIPH  ANIUS    IOl>   109, 
Euphronius  Presbyter.  34*  l6t; 
Eufebius  (Verceil)  28.  74. 
Exeter  (Council  of)  27. 


F. 


FABRicius   6.  11.  18.  2f.  7f.  77= 
Fauftinus  lot.  127.  12S. 

Felckman  f8.  72.  76. 


Fellero* 


I  82 

Fellerus  (Joachim)  i6f. 
Flavian  (  Cple)  lof.  1 13. 
Fortunatus  (  Venanc)    ii.    32.  1 14,    1 1  f.   165. 

171.  Sec.  Pref.  p.  1. 
Frankfort  [  Council  of)    19.  83. 
Fulgcntius  lof.  ijS'iJ?    '7''  '7»- 


GA  vANTUs  CBarthol.)  Si. 
Gaudentius  (Brix.)  15. 
Genebrard  73.  7f,  76.  Sp-  95- 
Gennadius  Maflil.  118.  131,  133.  149.  164. 
Gentilly  CCouncil  of)  69- 
Gorrham    i67> 
Grabe(Dr.)  36.  f  1. 
Gregory  I.  (Popej  46.   168. 
Gregoiy  IX.  (Pope)  5.  26.46. 
Gregory  Nazianz.  if.  101.  106.  lie.  1 26. 
Gregory  NyfTen.  109. 
Gregory  of  Tours.  3  f'  60. 
Gualdo  Corbeienf.  24. 
GundHng  (Wolfg  )  8.  71.  74.  76.  91. 


H. 


HAM  POLE  (Rich.)   39.  42.  44*   i6$-  167* 
Harduin     15.  18.  21.  x6,  27.  109.   113. 
Harris  (Dr.)  92.  93. 
Hatto  (Balil)  20.  83.  90. 
Heidcggerus    8. 
Helvicus   82. 
Hermantius  (Godfr.)  18. 
Hickes  (Dr.)  48.  69-  85.  07. 
Hilary  (of  Aries)    117.  1  ip* 
Hilary  (Poiaiers)  5-8.    110. 
Hildcgarde    38. 

Hincmar  "5.  16.  20.  31'.  66. 1 14.  itf^. 
Hody  (Dr.)  fg.  60,  61,  6i.  88. 
Honoratus  (of  Aries)   1 1 9. 
Honoratus  (of  Marfeilies)  118. 
Honorius  (Aurun)  24. 
Hormifdas  (Pope)  105. 
Hulfemannus    157. 
Hydruntinus  (Nic)  if.  70,  71.  96. 

I: 

JANUENSis  (Johin*:)   ifi.    16$.   167. 
Jerom    (St.)  60.   109.  11  1. 
Ignatius    13.  13  3- 
John  (of  Antioch)   ii2,  1 13. 
John:. II.  (Pope)   lof. 
iQdorus  Hifp.  p.  ijL.iJ'*  »77- 


An  index  of  AUTHORS. 


ulianus  (Cardin.)   168. 
M.VO  Carnotenlis    168- 
Juftinian  (Emp;)  lof. 


{ 


K 


ROM  AY  "RUS       157. 

L. 


LAB  BE    CPhil)     7.    18, 
Lambecius.  52.67.  84.  130 
Le  Lande  (  Peter)   iS. 

Laogbaine  (Dr.)  40  p 

Leo.   I.  (Pope)  7,  10^,  1O8,  II3- 
Leo  111.  (Pope)  20.  88. 
Leodegarius     1$.   17. 
Leporius    1  12.  1  16. 
Lepufculus  (Sebaftian)  76. 
Livius  (Poet)  217. 

Le   Long  35-,  36.  40.  j-6,  5-9.  6x.  6f.    67. 
Ludolphus  (Job)  91.  98,  161. 
Ludolphus  Saxo.  28.151. 
Lupus  (Troyes)  35-. 
Luther    ij-i, 
Lyra   167. 


M. 


MA  BILLON.     60.    62.    80.     82. 
Martianay    59,  60. 
Metrophanes  Critopulus.  96. 
Montfaucon   10.18.  24.  37-47.  J"©,  f.  fi»  H* 

f6.  5-8.  67.  69.  73,  74-  82.   107.  11$. 
Muratorius   11,   16,  18.  3i..4j.  47.  fo.  82.  91. 
J15.  167.  171    f^C. 


N. 


NEANDEU  (Mich.)    75. 
Neckham  (Alex.)  39.  164. 
Neflclius    71,  72.   77. 
Nichols    Iff. 
Nithardus    66. 

O. 

OLIVET  mount  (Monks  of)  20.  8/.  88. 
Orolius     149. 
Otfridus   67.  8j. 
Otho  (Fridug  ;  24.  27. 

Oudin  (Cafim)  8.  13.  17.  18,  21.  39.  40.  82. 
iiy.  167. 

P. 


An  index  of  AUTHORS. 


i^s 


p. 


PAG  I.    10.    18.     f6.    78, 
Papebrochius.  16. 
Pappus  (Joh^nJ  162. 
Parous  ('David)  34.    ij-;,   i68- 
Pareus  (Philip;   168. 
Paululus  (RobJ   if. 
Peaifon  (Bp)  7.  149. 
Pclagius  I.  fPope)  105. 

Pelagius  (Monk;  1 1 1 , 1 1  2. 1 17.  I  30,  i  ?  1 .  1  35 . 
Petavius   f.  IQ7.  108,  109. 
Petrus  de  Harentals  167. 
Planiides  (Max.)  71. 
Fiufiadenus    29. 


a 


QUESNEL  (Pafchaf.J  7.  iS.  '^6,  SV  1^-  ^2. 
107.  108.  118,  119,  lao. 
Le  Quien    11.  10.  47.  79.  88.  107,  io8«  «o9. 
1 1  J.  14*.  i;4.,  1J5. 

R. 

RAT  HER  I  us  (Veronaj  20.  Sf. 
Ratram  (Corb.;  5.  21.  Pref. 
Regino     18, 
Rcmbertus.  22.  84. 
Renaudor.  91.  93.  161. 
Ricaut  ('Sr  Paulj  98.  \6i. 
Riculphius  (Bp.  Soifl.)  22. 
Ruelins  (Johan.Lud.)  Pref.  p.  4^ 
Ruffinus    132.168.  176.  O'C* 


SA  NDIUS.    7. 
Serarius   (Nic.)  76.  162. 
Simon  (of  Tournay)  38. 
Sirni8!>dus    «7,  i8.  20,  21.  114,  iicV 


Smith  (Dr.)  49.  ^i.  ;•/.  <)\\ 

Spondanus.  91. 
Stephens  (H.)  75. 
Srrabus  CWalaf.)  60. 
Suicer  (Cafp.)  98. 

T. 

TAYLOR  ('Bp)   6.    IJ'7, 
Tent^elius  6.9.  i8i2i.  24..  37.  43.  47-.  fS. 
67.  76,77.  93.  157,  165-. 
Thecaras  (  Monachus)  96- 
Theodulphus  8.  19.  2x. 
Tillemont  lO.  18.  4.7.49.82.. 
Toledo  III.  Counei!  80. 
Toledo  IV.  Council  80.  81. 
Trevifa  CJoh.)  4.0. 
Turribius  loj-. 


V. 


ViGiLius  Tapfenfis  7,  8.  107. 
Vincentius  Lirin.  10.  104.  io(5.  lij.  117. 
119.  126,  127.  131. 
Ullerfton   1 67. 

Voffius  (Gerard)  4.  19.  $8.  9I1  9i» 
Ufher   5.  36.  46.  48.  <56.  74.  76.  77.  93.  9^. 
157^ 

W. 

WALL   (Dr.)    Ill,    111. 
Wanley  36.48.  ^4.  f$.  67.  89* 
Wharton  40,  41.  54.  66.  67. 
Wickliflf  27.  30.  40.  144. 
Willehad  83. 
Wotton  (Dr.)  ^4.  68. 


JL^X  ALO 


z. 


w.%  Ki  CEuftrat.  Johanoid)  8.  72,. 


An. 


is+ 


An  index  of  MSS. 


AMJRCsiAN.  I.  Athanafian  Creed,  ^o,  64, 
86,  viO.  Crc. 

A  M  B  R  o  s  I  A  N.  1.  Anonymous  Comments  on 
the  Creed.  43,  45'. 

Ambrosian.  3.  Fortunatus's  Comment.  11, 
32,  4)--  167. 

B  A  I  F  F  I  u  s.  Greek  Copy  of  the  Creed  72,  76. 

Baliol:Oxon.   Bruno's  Comment   163. 

Basi  l.  Bruno's  a»il  Hampoles  Comment.  37, 
43,44,  i6j-. 

B  E N  E  T  •  C  a  M B  R .  ^N.  X.)  AthaoafiaD  Creed.  5  3, 
8v  127,  131. 

Benet.  (N.  O.  V.)  Athanafian  Creed.  5-4,  60. 

Benet.  (K.  lo.)  Athanafian  Creed.  5-5. 

'Benet.  (i  — 1.)  Wickliri's  Coinmenr.  41. 

Benet.  (N.  XV.)  Gregory's  Pfalter.  47. 

Bodleian.  (Junius. 25. j  Fortunatus's  Com- 
ment. 33>   •  68. 

B  o  D  L  E  I  a  N.  (L  A  u  D.  H.  6  t.^Bruuo's  Comment. 

B  0  D L  e  1 A  K.(L  A  u  D.  E.  7  I .)  Bruno's  Comment. 

163- 
Bodleian.  fG.  39)  Athanafian  Creed.  $6. 
Bodleian. (E.  6.  11.;  Ncckham's  Comment. 

164. 
Bodleian.  fE.  7.  8.)  Ncckham's  Comment. 

39.  '^4- 

Bodleian.  (Laud.  C.  1 6. j  Wickliff's  Com- 
ment.  167. 

Br  YLiNC.GreekCopy  of  the  Creed.  73,  75-, 
139. 

C.  C.  C.  C Vicl.  Benet. 

CAMBRincE.  Athanafian  Creed,  j-f,  89, 

C  Assi  N  !.  NSi  s.   Athanafian  Creed.  f6. 

Colbert,  i.  Athanaiian  Creed.' 49,  yi,  107. 
I  3 1 .  &c. 

Colbert.  1.  Athanafian  Creed.  5-3. 

CoNSTANTiKoroLiTAN.  Grcck  Copy  of 
the  Creed.   73,  76. 

Cotton,  i.  Athanafian  Creed  in  Atheljlatt's 
Pfalter.  j-i,  60,    117,   231. 

Cotton,  i-  (Vit'ell.  E.  18  )  Athanafian  Creed. 

Cotton.  3.  (Vefp.  A.)  Athanafian  Creed.  47.^5. 
Cotton.  4.(Nero.  C.  4.)Gallican  Vcrlion.  67. 
D  1  o  N  Y  s  I  A  N.  Greek  Copy.  See  Butjfini, 
•Emanuel  Cambr.  Wicklifi's  Bible.  40. 


pELCKMAif.  Greek  Copy  of  I  he  Creed.  71. 
1  R  I  ARs  M  I  N  o  K  s.  LatinoGah'caa  Creed.  f6, 
Ger.mans  (St.)  Athanafian  Creed,  ^z,  ii6. 
German  de  Prez    Bruno's  Comment.    37. 
Goth  A.  Bruno's  with  Hampolc's    Coinmcut. 

37.  43.  44    l6f. 
Harley.  I.  Aihinafian  Creed,  ff. 
Ha  RLE  Y.  i.   Athanaiian  Creed,  yd. 
H  A  u  L  E  Y.   3.  Bruno's   Comment.   37. 
H  I  L  A  R  1  A  N .  Athanafian  Creed,  f  8- 
James's  (St.)  Athanafian  Creed.  5-4,  89.  127. 
James's  2-  (St. J  Ath.mafian  Creed,  j-fi. 
)oHNs's(St.y  Cambr,  Wickl.ff's  Comment.  39. 
John's  (St.)  Oxon.  Bruno's  Comment.  163. 
Lambeth.  Athanafian  Creed.  f\,  60,  6S. 
Leii-sick.  Bruno's  with  H<jw/)o/e.  37>  43i  44> 

i6f. 
Magdalen.  C  a  m  b  r.    WickhfF's    Ncw-Tc- 

fiament.  41. 
Magdalen.    Oxon.  Hampole's  Comment. 

165. 
Merton.  Oxon.  Bruno's  Comment.  164. 
Norfolk.  Athanafian  Creed,  j-y. 
Norfolk.  Englifia  Gofpels.  40. 
Palatine.  Greek  Copy  of  the  Creed.  72; 
Patrick  Young.  Greek  Copy  of  the  Creed. 

74'  9^- 
Regius  Paris,   i.  Athanafian  Creed,  jj, 
Regius  P  a  r  1  s.  2.  Greek  Copy  of  the  Creed. 

7?- 

S  A  r  u  M.  Sa.von  Verfion  of  the  Creed.  6S. 

Sidney.  C  a  m  b  r.  Hampole's  Comment  on 
the  Pfaln-.s,  Englifli.   167. 

TiiUANus.  Athinafian  Creed.  <)7. 

TnEvEs.  Athinafian  Creed.  49,  107,  1 31. 

Tr  IN  I  T  Y-CoLL.  C  A  MBR.  Bruno's  Comment. 
36,  62. 

Trin  I  T  Y-CoL  L.  C  AM  H  R.  Wickliff's  Com- 
ment. 41. 

Vienna,   i.    Athanafian  Creed.   $■1,83,84,86. 

Vienna.   2.  Greek  Cieed.  71. 

Vienna.  3.  Greek  Creed.  7 1. 

Vienna.  4.  German  Verfion.  67,  8j. 

Usher.   ».  Athanafian  Creed.  46. 

Usher,   j.  Book  of  Hymns.    74. 

Wurtxburg.  Bruno's  Comment.  36. 

York.   Bruno's  Comment.  37. 


FINIS, 


J 


y 


■^:M    ■ 


•Mmmm 


*^'t